For clarification its easier for the dog that is the important thing more than being easier for the vet.

They fail to inflate it the way you just out it. The younger the dog the more possibility of slight plate closure rate however it does not result in `leggier dogs` the way you are trying to make it sound, the extra height in the occasional occurrences, [ though its more the case with 8 week neuter ], is on average one to two millimetres. Trying to make out by inference that it will result in a dog like a giraffe is utterly inaccurate scaremongering.


The important element being no unwanted litters will result

Which is considerably more important than the possibility of a dog a millimetre or two taller than might have been, the dogs life being at risk from cancer but not from being a fraction taller. It also helps prevent prostate problems - which in entire males usually results in... castration as the best form of treatment.

Most vets will and do say up to approx 6 months after the op on the outside.

If you are intent on trying to put people off having their dogs neutered, [ though why you would want to escapes me ], please at least keep to real facts, not old wives tales and exaggeration

I`ve got 3 neutered males - all rescues therefore neutered late (5,6ish and two-ish). I feel (on no scientific evidence whatsoever) that it is better to wait till the animal is mature enough to display his character traits before taking the decision to neuter as otherwise you are trying to cope with changing hormone levels as well as an emerging set of behaviours.
However, having worked with horses, where gelding is the norm, and takes place at a young age, I`m open to persuasion.

I'm confused So if my castrated dog went to a bitch that was in season he could actually tie with her?

Also, it's totally off the topic!

P.S. Nice post Patch, I can't give you any reppies yet though

Hi Lene. There is increasing evidence to support this. There has recently been a comprehensive evaluation of the pros and cons of neutering, based on peer reviewed and published research in relation to this. The article is fully referenced. It does support the statements Dyane has made.

Here is an extract summing up castration -

"On the positive side, neutering male dogs
• eliminates the small risk (probably <1%) of dying from testicular cancer
• reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders
• reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
• may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive)
On the negative side, neutering male dogs
• if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a
common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis.
• increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6
• triples the risk of hypothyroidism
• increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment
• triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems
• quadruples the small risk (<0.6%) of prostate cancer
• doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract cancers
• increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
• increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations"

http://secure.highspeedweb.net/~ldcpet/spay_neuter.htm

That's all very sketchy! I've made my views on neutering clear before and I still have not seen enough evidence that the health risks outweigh the benefits of reducing the population of unwanted dogs.

If she let him, yes.

Max did this with a family labrador when he was about 18 months old (had been neutered at 8 months old).

She kept presenting to him all afternoon, and they then hid behind the garage and "did the dirty". Although they tied, it lasted less than a couple of minutes, and both came away and laid down licking their bits

Fantastic post Patch Bruce is being done on the 4th July....just 8 months old.

It always surprises me when I read some posts re the neutering v non-neutering camps, how some people can reckon that to leave ones animals as nature intended is paramount to doing them some kind of disservice. Why all the warning of what can happen to an animal left as nature intended, why is it considered that modifying your animals is better than leaving them with all parts working as part of a whole, why do those who consider neutering and neutering as early as possible such an advantage, advantage to who or what?

There are only 2 things certain if you neuter your animals, the first is that it can’t reproduce and the second, it can’t get a disease in the part that has been removed.

Considering the above what could possible cause you to take such a irreversible step, if you have an intact dog of the opposite sex and can’t separate them when needed then you may consider that the first is the practical way to go, if you don’t have another intact animal why would you need to neuter.

When considering point two, the chance of getting a disease that may effect the organs to be removed by neutering, well this is just not logical, the dog is far more likely to fall victim to a disease in another area of the body but you will not consider removing them. At the same time removing a large proportion of the animals hormone & natural steroid producing systems may well lead to health problems that would not have occurred in the first place had the animals system, balanced by nature, not been interfered with.

Think it sad that dogs being considered possessions we are allowed to do to them what ever we choose apart that is from removing the tail and cropping the ears and yet those who are whole heartedly behind the ban on docking and cropping are in a lot of cases fully in favour of neutering. To me it seems a strange set of morals, an undocked tail may become damaged but that possibility is dismissed as not relevant but because a un-neutered animal may get a disease in the organs that has not been removed it is considered a matter of urgency that an intrusive operation is undertaken at the first possible moment.

Because dogs are possessions each and every owner can may up there own mind as to if there is a need to neuter and if that reason is morally valid, they will if they speak to others be told all sorts of stories but the fact remains there are hundreds of intact elderly dogs who have never reproduced themselves without there caring owners willing it nor been killed by one of the threatened illnesses. There are also hundreds of owners who will tell you that they have had all their dogs neutered as soon as possible and they are fine, no problems at all, well no problems they are aware of as if they have always neutered as soon as possible they have no idea what a dog left in it’s natural state is like.

Hi Sarah. I think you need to read the article to see the details. I've just posted an overview of castration.... but to answer one or two points....

The obesity increase is linked to the 3 fold increase in hypothyroidism.

1.6 what? Increasing by a factor of, means that it's multiplied by that figure eg a risk of 1% becomes 1.6%. Interestingly the increase in cardiac hemangiosarcoma in spayed bitches is much greater at >5%