Dog vasectomy or chemical sterilization

[BlueBeard]

Hey, SkawdDawg? Just shake him off. Just a zoo who, like his dog, feels a need to raise a leg to every post.

Nothing of import in his response. Like the good book says, "He's done it before and he'll do it again, and every time he does it, seems only the children cry."

Like a couple responders mentioned previously, the OP knottyinva1, in particular, I too very much appreciated hearing the details of an actual experience with an alternative to castration.

 

[Gigelina]

The intact Husky can be very aggressive when he wants to hump and tends to bite and bark in your face, which we are trying to correct. On the other hand, the one on whom I had a vasectomy performed was the sweetest, most gentle dog you'd ever meet.

 

[ScotExotic]

All I know is when I get a dog, hes keeping his balls. If someone asks why just tell em; so I have a horny boy that wants to put his dick in me all hours of the day. And so I can feel his puppies dripping down my legs Vet is prolly a zoo too heh.

 

[Gigelina]

Gigelina, that was to show the contrast in behavior between two intact dogs, not to suggest that the vasectomy has any effect on personality (which it doesn't). You misunderstood what I wrote and jumped to a false conclusion. I have since added a note under that post to clarify.

well that was my misconclusion - sorry for that

 

[James Nosky]

Contrary to what some mutilation propagandist might have you believe male dogs aren't some unstoppable heat seeking missile... Sure a bitch in heat is interesting but if you can call back your dog from chasing a cat odds are you can call him back from chasing a girl.

Thats what I mean, I guess there are just a few rare dogs, you can call of from chasing prey. Particularly if you as a human can´t even recognize, that mother nature just has turned on that heat seeker in your dog. And how long and how much experience does it take to train your dog so well? And then how many people can do that? So from that angle, I find it risky to recommend to only rely on good training.

Yes, cutting off gonads and taking out uterus is anything but nice. But I also highly dislike the attitude of demonizing by calling people in a discussion "mutilation propagandist" - it terminates any type reasonable exchange on view and opinions and thus leaves things as they are.

 

[knottyinva1]

I want to leave my boy intact as much as all of you. I also just can't live with potentially contributing to the number of dogs euthanized or that spend their whole lives in shelters because my dog impregnated a bitch. Therefore, the vasectomy is still the best option, for me. If you are against it then so be it.

 

[ScotExotic]

I want to leave my boy intact as much as all of you. I also just can't live with potentially contributing to the number of dogs euthanized or that spend their whole lives in shelters because my dog impregnated a bitch. Therefore, the vasectomy is still the best option, for me. If you are against it then so be it.

Wouldn't it be easy to make sure he doesn't impregnate any bitches though? Just keep him fenced and leashed. It sounds like chemical sterilization or vasectomy could still effectively neuter him. You don't want that. Id just keep fully intact. Get the full thing.

 

[kuchen]

Thats what I mean, I guess there are just a few rare dogs, you can call of from chasing prey. Particularly if you as a human can´t even recognize, that mother nature just has turned on that heat seeker in your dog. And how long and how much experience does it take to train your dog so well? And then how many people can do that? So from that angle, I find it risky to recommend to only rely on good training.

Yes, cutting off gonads and taking out uterus is anything but nice. But I also highly dislike the attitude of demonizing by calling people in a discussion "mutilation propagandist" - it terminates any type reasonable exchange on view and opinions and thus leaves things as they are.

I mean what else would you call it? Removing healthy organs without imminent need for action? and why? because your afraid (s)he'll misbehave? because it looks "better"? because it's "normal"? I don't know about you but I'd call that mutilation be it the vocal cords, ears, tail or gonads... I mean cutting off a small part of a woman's vagina is also commonly referred to as genial mutilation (thou strangely enough doing the same to a man isn't...) and no one would even consider removing a human's gonads theses days. Hell if you want permanent birth control as a human there are far less invasive options but if you have a well behaved dog there are still people out there trying to convince you to mutilate the poor thing because of population control...

Also a lot of what I read on the subject sounds a lot like propaganda... sure there is a reasonable discussion to be had but a lot of the stuff I heard sounded like whoever was talking had never spent any time with an intact dog. A pair of balls doesn't turn a dog into some aggressive, unteachable puppy machine neither does removing them transform that into an obedient, loving family pet. While the subject of behavior hasn't been exhaustively studied there is some evidence to suggest that neutering doesn't just increase health issues but also behavioral issues on the whole. One thing is pretty clear thou: testosterone and estrogen reduce the effect of the "stress hormone" cortisol so removing the gonads is likely to exaggerate fear based behavior including fear based aggression (e.g. protective, defensive ).

Srly thou: Sex doesn't just happen, even with dogs. That's why I talked about some countries around here... We don't have a dog overpopulation here in Germany even thou about half of all dogs are intact. In fact there is a trend to "rescue" (import) street dogs from other countries because there aren't enough small dogs in shelters. Keeping a dog from having offspring isn't that hard. Females are sterile about 90% of the time anyways so you just need to be a bit careful during heat and you'll be fine.

 

[Aka]

Chemical castration is what it sounds like.
It's a chip that is inserted under the dogs skin which reduces the testosterone levels of the dog. It is the same as cutting the balls off only with the difference that when the chip stops releasing it's chemical things (i don't know what exactly happens there) he's gonna be potent again.
Chemical castration makes the balls shrink during it's time (i think it's somewhat about 6 to 9 months). Sex drive is reduced.

Vasectomy, I don't know anything about that.

with vasectomy, the dog always ejaculates "lubricating liquid" uretral gland and the diluent liquid prostatic fluid., but more the sperm in question. he keeps his libido without problem since the testicles that produce testosterone are intact

 

[kuchen]

with vasectomy, the dog always ejaculates "lubricating liquid" uretral gland and the diluent liquid prostatic fluid., but more the sperm in question. he keeps his libido without problem since the testicles that produce testosterone are intact

Exactly just like in humans all you're doing is preventing the sperm from reaching the prostate by blocking or severing the vas deferens.

 

[James Nosky]

Just to toss in an other angle - what about circumcision? In some countries I believe, human male adults are circumcised at birth for what ever reason. Other societies do that as part of a religious event or what ever you want to call that. Just to level the playing field of the argument we should not do to our pets what we do not do to our self (or our kids).

So with the aspect of more then half of the world population eating meat and fish, butchering animals for food, keeping hens in small cages etc, I would feel a vasectomy a pretty solid approach and compromise.

 

[UR20Z]

Just to toss in an other angle - what about circumcision? In some countries I believe, human male adults are circumcised at birth for what ever reason. Other societies do that as part of a religious event or what ever you want to call that. Just to level the playing field of the argument we should not do to our pets what we do not do to our self (or our kids).

So with the aspect of more then half of the world population eating meat and fish, butchering animals for food, keeping hens in small cages etc, I would feel a vasectomy a pretty solid approach and compromise.

Let me preface what I'm about to say with a caveat: I just plain don't give a shit about either the pros or cons, or the political or religious reasoning that might be involved in circumcision, either male or female - Any such considerations are completely irrelevant to my question, and will be ignored as non-answers.

Having said that, what I DO want to hear about is exactly how it is you figure circumcision has *EVEN THE TINIEST TRACE OF RELEVANCE* to a discussion about castration vs vasectomy? The only connection I can dream up between them is that they're all procedures involving the genitalia. Beyond that, I can figure out NOTHING that connects them in any way - except perhaps that it might be a handy way to try to derail the conversation for some reason I can't figure out.

 

[Austral]

Yeah, that was offtopic, but no need to response like that...

You can express your opinion here if you want @James Nosky https://www.zooville.org/threads/are-you-cut-or-uncut.7495

 

[UR20Z]

Yeah, that was offtopic, but no need to response like that...

You can express your opinion here if you want @James Nosky https://www.zooville.org/threads/are-you-cut-or-uncut.7495

Did you actually read and comprehend what I posted?

Apparently not, based on your response. Allow me to try to clarify for you: So far as I can tell, there is nothing that connects circumcision to a discussion of castration vs vasectomy. If there is, that's the only thing I want to hear about. I don't care what considerations might or might not be involved in the circumcision/no circumcision debate. If I did, I'd post in the thread you so kindly linked. Notice that I'm not posting there? That's because I have no interest in the debate.

In this case, I only want to hear about how the poster thinks circumcision *HAS ANYTHING AT ALL* to do with a discussion of castration vs vasectomy.

 

[Imknotgay]

I looked into what is involved for getting my boy a vasectomy. Apparently I'd have to drive halfway across the country and the procedure cost about 8 grand.

I was primarily interested in it just to shut up my family members who obsess about my dogs testicals.
Apparently I'm a super irrisponsible pet owner just because I didn't neuture him immediately.

 

[James Nosky]

Having said that, what I DO want to hear about is exactly how it is you figure circumcision has *EVEN THE TINIEST TRACE OF RELEVANCE* to a discussion ...

I am sorry, I thought it to be obvious ... this discussion is about ethical, moral and health aspects of vasectomy. Some arguments have been brought about about it not being right to do such things to animals, animal rights etc. It is the big picture, that humans cut and alter as they see fit. And they are doing so for many different reasons. When keeping this overall view in mind (how society treats animals, how humans treat humans..) I feel some of the arguments brought up here and particular some of the strong language some members toss at each out a bit out of proportion.

 

[UR20Z]

I am sorry, I thought it to be obvious ... this discussion is about ethical, moral and health aspects of vasectomy. Some arguments have been brought about about it not being right to do such things to animals, animal rights etc. It is the big picture, that humans cut and alter as they see fit. And they are doing so for many different reasons. When keeping this overall view in mind (how society treats animals, how humans treat humans..) I feel some of the arguments brought up here and particular some of the strong language some members toss at each out a bit out of proportion.

So it was indeed a derail attempt. That's what I suspected.

If you look back, you'll probably notice that this thread was started as, and give or take a very minor brush against the morality/ethics question in one or two places, has pretty well remained, an "anybody know anything about it/got experience finding somebody to do it?" thread, not a discussion of the morality/ethics (or lack of it) involved. Circumcision - an idiotic procedure done, so far as I'm aware, EXCLUSIVELY on humans (Why am I not surprised - only humans could be smart-stupid enough to come up with the idea of cutting off a chunk of each other's sexual organs) - doesn't even come close to having anything to do with the topic of finding a method of rendering a dog sterile that doesn't involve lopping his balls off like they're some kind of tumor.

 

[Austral]

Did you actually read and comprehend what I posted?

Apparently not, based on your response. Allow me to try to clarify for you: So far as I can tell, there is nothing that connects circumcision to a discussion of castration vs vasectomy. If there is, that's the only thing I want to hear about. I don't care what considerations might or might not be involved in the circumcision/no circumcision debate. If I did, I'd post in the thread you so kindly linked. Notice that I'm not posting there? That's because I have no interest in the debate.

In this case, I only want to hear about how the poster thinks circumcision *HAS ANYTHING AT ALL* to do with a discussion of castration vs vasectomy.

I linked the thread to James so he can speak about the topic there and don't make and offtopic here. You are the one that can't read and comprehend.

 

[UR20Z]

I linked the thread to James so he can speak about the topic there and don't make and offtopic here. You are the one that can't read and comprehend.

Given the context of nearly instant response, seeming gripe about my post, and suggestion, it sure looked as though you were trying to point ME there. If I misunderstood that, well, all I can do is say "Sorry".

 

[Austral]

Given the context of nearly instant response, seeming gripe about my post, and suggestion, it sure looked as though you were trying to point ME there. If I misunderstood that, well, all I can do is say "Sorry".

Ok, the first part was, since I was expressing that although his point was offtopic, your response was a bit too much.

But in the second part (that you answer) I even "@" James user account, so he can go to that thread to give his opinion about it instead of derailing here.