Hacker News Reader

Comment by ambivalents | Hacker News Reader

I'm faced with this decision now, and am leaning towards not neutering my pup. At the very least, I'll be waiting until he's one year old, when most of his sexual development has wound down. The vets I've been to have both encouraged I do it, at 6 months and at 9 months. And they have the financial incentive to do so.

The whole practice feels archaic and somewhat cruel. I understand why people do it, but I wonder how much of it is societal/vet pressure rather than in the best interest of the dog/owner.

View on HN

I'll be honest, I'm not really a pet person and I'm curious about the issue.

I think I understand the argument that animal rights activists make for spaying and neutering that it controls the population by making sure each pet has someone to care for it, reducing euthanasia rate and reducing strays that might attack people or other pets. The article argues this as well and explains that there's more to it than societal/vet pressure. Controlling the pet population via spaying or neutering seems humane to me, especially considering the alternative of putting pets down en masse.

Can you explain the other side of the argument? Why do you feel spaying or neutering pets is cruel?

Neutering a male dog can increase the risk of certain health conditions, including bone cancer, obesity, and hypothyroidism [0]. Not neutering is also associated with certain health risks as well. So it's not clear cut without diving into the research. But this is just to say there are health-related arguments to be made for not neutering a dog.

'Cruel' may be a stretch, as I know the procedure is safe, apart from some minor discomfort to the dog. But you are fundamentally altering your dog, and I just don't want to take it lightly. It will almost certainly change who he is (his behavior, energy).

[0] - Decent summary of benefits and risks, with paper citations at the end. I haven't done a deep dive of the science yet. https://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/long-term-health-risks...

Just want to say thanks for the link. I have not seen such a well rounded write up on the topic. Sadly it only contributes more to my own uncertainty :)

I think it can be an unnecessary procedure. Any procedure, no matter how minor carries risks. If people were responsible pet owners it would largely not be needed.

Also, some vets find the reduction in aggression claims somewhat overstated if not dubious. It can prevent sexual hyperness and bad behavior in some dogs where that is an issue, but again the benefits are often overstated.

The only real tangible and pragmatic arguement for is it prevents animal shelters from being full of even more neglected animals and animals being put down because they have no where to go. Again, if people were responsible...

From an ethical / moral standpoint you could get into the concept of personhood and partial personhood (we ascribe a certain level of personhood to our pets). The arguement being: If the procedure would be unethical to do to a child why would it be ethical to do that same procedure to an animal?

The answer is we, society, do not assign full personhood to pets. And so the ethics of how we treat them is different.

Though this has changed rapidly over the last 50 years or so and the relative amount of personhood we ascribe to animals has increased significantly. I suspect it will continue to evolve.

Apply the same question to humans. People have empathy.

one of the reasons people neuter dogs (males especially) is to lessen the chance of aggressive behavior. I don't know whether this is actually true, but it's one of the main reasons people give. the other (and more persuasive, imo) reason is simply to prevent the dog from procreating. there are already far more dogs and cats in the world than people are willing to home. unless you're able to keep your dog away from any females or are willing to take in more puppies, you probably ought to get him fixed.

whatever you choose, I recommend you make a decision soon and act on it promptly. my dad wavered over this decision with our family dog for a few years and when he finally decided to get him fixed at age three or four, I do think it was worse for him than if it had been done at a younger age.

By worse, do you mean his recovery was worse? Longer, harder?

I'm planning to make the decision by the time he turns 1, in a few months. While my dog isn't aggressive by any stretch, he is extremely high energy. I do wonder if neutering him will calm him down a little.

it took several more weeks than we expected for him to fully recover and he was obviously in discomfort during that time. I'm not a vet, so I don't know if it was just a fluke or if this is common in large dogs who get neutered later. all I'm saying is don't procrastinate. consult your vet and/or the internet, then either do it or don't.

Breed affects this. We have large dogs (Irish Wolfhound and Great Dane) and it’s recommended not to neuter until the bone plates have fused — about 23 months. So I waited and did it pretty much as soon as possible. Smaller dogs can supposedly be done sooner.

Vets will neuter cats at six weeks which seems incredibly young, but “it’s fine”.

As far as I can tell there isn’t much actual science on this.

In my experience the best effect is on male cats — they become very sweet and friendly.

I have a 115 pound mixed breed dog that is unneutered. When it became clear he was going to be big it was recommended we hold off on neutering to improve his chances of having healthy joints later in life.

He has an excellent disposition and has never displayed aggression to people or other pet, so we decided neutering wasn’t going to be needed and our vet supported that decision. An added benefit for larger dogs is they tend to regulate their body weight better when unneutered. Again, good for long term join health.

I have noticed that other dogs are aggressive towards him. I have wondered if this has to do with him being unneutered and his size. He has been attacked quite a few times by other dogs. He tends turn his back and not fight back initially and then, if the attack continues, turns to face and give a low growl and warning snap. That usually ends it and the other dog calms down and acts friendly.

I find often the owners of the attacking dog fall into one of two categories and neutering usually doesn’t have much to do with it.

1. The owner is afraid. They are afraid to lose control of their dog. They have no confidence that they can control the dog and panic when the dog misbehaves.

2. The owner yells at and then hits their dog after the dog attacks my dog.

Some dogs are going to be naturally more aggressive, but, like people, environment and proper socializing when young tends to have an outweighted effect on how aggressive or not a dog is.

I remember the IWH receiving more aggression pre neutering. His weight never exceeded 140 lbs but he was unusually tall.

I didn't neuter mine and he's 12 years old dealing with some testosterone related growths on his anus. He's going to have surgery to remove the growth and a neutering to prevent it from coming back.

He was probably a lot more to handle because of not neutering him but it worked for us. Next time I think I'd go ahead with the procedure. He'll be just as awesome and will fit into society better.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. Most of the vets in Europe wouldn't suggest neutering, only if it's a medical necessity or the dog's being overly aggressive. And if you really need to, wait until he's grown up.

Our dog is a rescue and was neutered at a very young age before he came to us. His development was rather delayed and he's definitely behind. I really can't imagine doing this just because it makes your life "easier". I would never do it without a good reason.

I got my first puppy (after a lifetime of rescue dogs) almost 2 years ago.

I worked long and hard to find a dog with the temperament I wanted, and, have spent the past 2 years molding him into an amazing dog.

I decided, before I even got him, that I would only neuter him if it was absolutely required for his health or his behavior. At the two year mark (which is in January) I'm fairly sure that it won't ever be required for any kind of behavioral reasons. It hasn't always been perfect and I know at times things would be easier if I HAD neutered him.

I also didn't choose the easiest breed, he is a purebred Parson Russel Terrier

> The whole practice feels archaic and somewhat cruel

I'm not sure its archaic or cruel. For virtually all rescued animals, it's the best path.

> I wonder how much of it is societal/vet pressure rather than in the best interest of the dog/owner

1000% social and vet pressure. In my circle of dog people, who are more conscious than most, being a part of dog agility/sports, I still have people who get hostile when I say that I don't intend to neuter him unless it's absolutely required. They insist his behaviour will turn foul. At first "no way he doesn't become a terror by 1 year old", recently "wait till he's 2," soon I'm sure I'll hear about how awful having an uncastrated 3-year-old will be.

The pressure from my veterinarian was INSANE. Keep in mind this is a vet practice I've been using for over THIRTY years, I've had 9 dogs and 1 cat under their care. The owner/veterinarian who I've known all that time and is a close family friend was strongly in favor. Her associate who I see now as the owner is transitioning out of practice (I've been there that long!) was nearly hostile about my decision and flat-out told me I was wrong and tried to fear-monger me about how I wouldn't be able to control him.

> I understand why people do it

I, too, understand why people do it. It was hard work. It required lots of careful planning to find a dog with the right temperament. It STILL requires lots more work than if I just got him snipped. I will still do it again. It's not for everyone.

Are you planning for him to have children? Are you willing to take care of those kids?

If not, is it because you’re against the pain of it?

I think it's like declawing cats or (human) circumcision. It is just something Americans do and consider normal, while the rest of the Western world considers it pointlessly cruel nonsense.

No, declawed cats are very much NOT the norm in the US and every organization recommends against it. The vast majority of cats aren't declawed.

Beyond that, declawing can cause unwanted behavioral issues in cats (unlike de-sexing when behavioral changes are positive/wanted)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com