As a US veterinarian, I hold a nuanced view of spay/neuter. Nevertheless, I generally recommend it as default for most pet owners, as it goes along with their expectations of what their pet's life will be like. People who elected to leave their dogs intact are often shocked by something down the line.
1. Pyometra. Dogs do not have menopause, but they may stop cycling. When they do they can develop a uterine infection that can become life threatening in hours.
2. Perineal hernias. Unneutered, aging dogs are at risk for pelvic floor weakness that results in specialty surgery (and neutering), costing thousands of dollars.
3. Hit by car. Unneutered pets are much more likely to escape randomly and get hit by cars. Even pets that normally do not run away from their owners.
4. Mammary tumor. Unspayed or late-spayed females are at significantly more risk than those spayed at 6 months.
5. Pregnancy. Shocked pikachu face when the unspayed chihuahua actually did get knocked up by their friend's unneutered chow.
6. Bleeding. All bitches bleed during proestrus.
7. Behavior. The dog-park behavior people like in their pets is the behavior of neutered dogs. Unneutered dogs are much more likely to attempt to dominate the other dogs and get into fights.
That said, it's a trade off. Unneutered males definitely have a different growth pattern and develop a stockier build. They also seem to have significantly fewer issues with the cranial cruciate ligament in the stifle (knee). There are some other, more hand-wavey associations of cancer in golden retrievers related to neutering, but it's hard to tell if that's just an artifact of the data as it's more likely unneutered dogs appear at teaching hospitals for injuries (hit by car, fights) rather than for cancer.
I would love to just recommend people be responsible adults. I wish that the US could be like Norway, where people don't seem to abandon their unneutered animals, and they don't seem to have problems with their bad behavior.
My father-in-law had an intact Labrador Retriever show dog who escaped over a high fence and swam across a large river in order to visit a bitch in heat. They found him days later, filthy and with some minor injuries. The instinct to reproduce will drive dogs to do crazy things.
I'm an adult male and if it weren't for the corporate soul sucking 9-5 job eating away most of my time and energy I'd still engage in stupid shit just for mating.
I think males are biologically programed to stay in heat way longer than females, at least until the first baby is born, just that modern society has figured how to tame us by placing us in a financial rat race where it all about chasing material things, hobbies and lifestyles or the next big career rather than the next potential partner.
As a kid I never really understood the point Fight Club was trying to make but as an adult, I do now.
A friend in military told us that as part of their training they are given injections to curb sexual desire. They can't even masturbate. Its given regularly every month or so until their training is complete.
Extremley strenuously exercise is known to lower testosterone. I wonder if people believe this urban legend because their bodies are in shock and they lose libido due to basic training exercises?
I took my three-year old, intact bearded collie for a walk where we met a couple with a spaniel bitch. They carried on walking, and about 10 minutes later (when they were a good distance away) we let ours off the lead. He raced off towards them at high speed, which is not unknown for him but largely under control these days. We eventually got him back and (almost as an aside) the owner of the other said "ours is in heat at the moment." Could have warned us pal, we'd never have let him off.
About eight weeks later, I took him for a walk along the same canal and let him off. Rounded a corner where he'd got a bit ahead, and he was just gone, disappeared without a trace. I started off as quickly as I could down the canal, passing various people who (as if it were some kind of joke) said things like "oh yes, going very fast that way". Eventually, got him back because a cyclist had the common sense to apprehend him and wait for me - "my dog does this all the time." This was after almost a mile, so the dog hadn't been hanging around.
Beardies have a reputation for going AWOL, but on this occasion I can only presume he had some memory of that fine young spaniel he'd pursued previously, and decided to rejoin the chase. I haven't been back there since. Have considered getting him neutered but we basically like him as he is and have learned to be super-careful at any time. Helps to be warned if someone has a bitch who is likely to be especially interesting at a given time, most owners are good about it but a few just don't seem to understand.
You are taking your dog for a walk off leash and feel that others who are walking their dogs ought to do something to ensure you dog does not run off? Otherwise they don't understand the issue?
I assumed "off leash" because if he can run off even when on a leash, then it's worse than I imagined.
Not to pile on, but ""ours is in heat at the moment." Could have warned us pal, we'd never have let him off." is a pretty extreme sense of entitlement, you should really reconsider how much other people should care about your dog and it's behaviors, ideally it should be none
Thank you for sharing this. Regarding behavior, do intact male dogs also attract aggressive behavior towards them? My (intact male) dog isn't aggressive, but a few times now other dogs have attacked him (not resulting in serious injury, but was super scary). I was told by a trainer that he could be emitting hormones that cause this behavior in other dogs.
Yes, and it could simply be a matter of things like postural cues that you think aren't aggressive but nevertheless are asserting behavior that other dogs don't like.
> 3. Hit by car. Unneutered pets are much more likely to escape randomly and get hit by cars. Even pets that normally do not run away from their owners.
Most people I personally know/knew didn't spay/neuter their pets when I was growing up.
I've seen animals do some absolutely bonkers crazy stuff while in heat. I know an intact female pet that literally broke a screen window to jump out said window in order to mate. This was a second story window, yes she jumped out of a second story window!
I want to preface this by saying: veterinary science is just that, a science. Your vet has spent their career, hopefully anyways, learning what the best veterinary minds know about veterinary medicine. And your vet is probably a whole lot more trustworthy than random comments on the internet like this one. But with that said, I agree completely with the above: citation sorely needed. Show me the data.
One of the first conversations I had with my vet was about when I could start running with my dog. There's a lot of conversation online about how you need to wait until growth plates fuse to avoid future health issues (or similar variations on the same theme).
Her response was, to paraphrase:
> This is all just folk wisdom. There's no proper scientific evidence to support that conclusion, and it doesn't make sense to me. What distance are you running? Do you think a wolf could run that distance at your dog's age? You know your dog, just pay attention to her; play it by ear, don't take it too hard, take it easier on harder surfaces like concrete, and get her used to running before pushing hard.
When she said that, something really clicked in my head. We're finally, finally starting to talk more about evidenced-based medicine when it comes to humans, but when it comes to animals... The plain fact of the matter is that much of veterinary medicine is really just our best guess at things. All of the problems that human medical research have are magnified substantially in the veterinary world, even if just because of how much more resource-constrained it is.
I'm having a really tough time coming up with hard numbers here -- I can't find anything at all from the US -- but I found a UK report from about a decade ago [1] that, adjusting for inflation and currency conversion, suggests that $230mm USD was spent in the UK on all veterinary research, with a heavy emphasis on agriculture over pets (extremely unsurprising!). Meanwhile, about $3bb USD was spent on human medical research [2], with about $866mm USD spent for cancer research alone[3].
Think about how many conflicting studies we hear about cancer risk in humans. Now imagine how much worse it would be with less than 1/10 the budget. And again, most of veterinary research is specific to agriculture, not pets, so now imagine how much more worse it would be if most of that research money was spent on treating other species in completely different environments, with no interest in how it relates to humans.
So again: veterinary medicine is a scientific field, and part of your vet's job is to keep abreast of the literature, and they can almost certainly do a better job of it than you or I. But if you've ever been hit by the thought "man, there is just soooo much we do not understand about human biology" or caught yourself saying "anecdata isn't the same as medical research"... when it comes to veterinary medicine, the situation is much, much worse.
The going joke is that everything we know was true for 8 beagles. Veterinary studies are often small in scale and not made of representatives of the whole population.
I don't feel like digging through PubMed to back up an assertion like "unneutered dogs are more likely to roam and get hit by car." At best I'll be able to give you a records-review type of study and it's a low quality of evidence. Also, trends don't mean that your specific animal is going to be the same. I work with an unneutered labrador patient who is never going to get hit by a car, and I have definitely treated neutered ones who have. This association, though, does have a basis in animal behavior and is familiar to vets who work in emergency rooms.
The level of evidence that suggests that neutering is positively associated with cancer is extremely poor. Yet, there are people running with it like it's 100%. Meanwhile, we have stronger evidence that spaying prevents mammary cancer and castration prevents testicular cancer.
Good on you for jogging with your dog. Be mindful of their limits, because they will hide pain. Keep them in athletic trim and you should be fine, in my opinion.
Oh to be clear, I think it's perfectly plausible (and even likely). You can boil the question down to "does smelling a female in heat lower impulse control in intact males", and, well, yeah, I can believe that without batting an eye. But it was a convenient place to make a larger point about the lack of good evidence in a lot of veterinary medicine, which I think is something we should talk more about (I'd levy the same critique against medicine for people, too!). Anyways, I probably should have been clearer in my original post, that my point was really: it seems completely plausible, but we need to be better about citing research in medicine and being explicit about corresponding confidence levels, and veterinary research is woefully under-funded.
I think my personal biggest complaint about the overwhelming prevalence of desexing in the US is that we're not really being honest with ourselves about why we're doing it. I would argue, based on my experience, (I realize the hypocrisy in using sociological anecdata immediately after complaining about medical anecdata), the vast majority of pet owners who desex their dogs do so out of convenience, and the vast majority of policy encouragements for it (eg: shelters requiring it or cities assessing 10x licensing fees for intact dogs) are done because most US dog owners aren't responsible enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies and have a horrible habit of abandoning unwanted litters. That's not to say that there aren't medical reasons; some of them are even on really solid footing (eg using spaying as a way to stop frequent painful false pregnancies), but I don't think most US dog owners are even aware of that being a thing, much less making medical decisions in response to it.
I think we are starting to see a discussion of sterilization vs desexing, which is great, but even so, as it stands today, spay/neuter is standard practice in the US. I almost never see an acknowledgement that, particularly for females, we've more or less mandated a very substantial, very invasive medical procedure, mostly just because dog owners in the US just don't want to deal with a particular part of canine biology. And I personally think that raises ethical concerns around treatment of animals.
Also, thanks! She's an almost-90-pound ridgeback, so... running is one of the few things keeping us (relatively) sane!
I suspect a study to prove the exact means of connection is very difficult.
A retrospective study would be easier. Based on a survey of a given vets files (not quite a random sample, but for this case it might be good enough to establish a bias in facts), could trace the incidence rate of 'yard escape injuries' between 'intact' and neutered males, as well as 'intact' and spayed females.
> I would love to just recommend people be responsible adults.
Always a good recommendation.
Neutering dogs and cats seems the consequence of "owning" in an urban or otherwise densely populated area. It feels wrong to me. I would personally get a farm before I get pets.
Then, I have horses. Neutering males is common here for our breeds, as stallions are pretty difficult to manage. It is said that Portuguese breeds are often left intact, as a result of behavioral selection.
The word “bitch” has changed so much in cultural meaning during the last 50 years or so that somehow it feels more offensive to call a female dog a “bitch” then a human.
It hasn’t. That’s the source of the word, and you likely haven’t been in circles where the real word is used intentionally for the real word’s purpose.
Or to put it in a way which might connect better with gp:
By continuing to use the word "bitch" for its original meaning, vets, dog breeders, and the like are fighting against the appropriation (and degradation) of their culture by the world at large.
The background information is interesting, but the lack of any base rates and the use of apples-to-oranges comparisons makes the author’s argument seem like one made in bad faith. The author omits that 20% of shelter dogs are still euthanized each year, instead using the overall population as the denominator. And the 5,700 dogs being purchased in auction by rescue groups over ten years is pretty insignificant considering that 1.6 million dogs are adopted each year (and the author even highlights the possibility that the dogs may in fact be abused but sees this as hypocrisy on the part of the rescues). The rest is anecdotes about puppy mills. What would have been convincing is an actual example of demand not being met by the supply provided by pounds, or even better, statistics on a possible shift in demographics from mixed breeds to pure breeds in pounds.
Also describing strays as living successfully on their own is absurd. Sure some haven’t starved to death or been crippled by random acts of violence by humans. Any one of them would still prefer a home where their physical and emotional needs are met.
> Also describing strays as living successfully on their own is absurd. Sure some haven’t starved to death or been crippled by random acts of violence by humans.
In some parts of the world, unowned dogs seem to flourish; for example India has more than 30 million street dogs. However this is not a good thing, since dog on human violence happens too, and 20,000 people in India die of rabies every year. Street dogs are well known for attacking people, so even if the dogs can survive on their own it's still irresponsible to allow that.
Stray dogs living in packs would certainly prefer to have regular meals and a shelter and not to be hunted down by people, but they're just fine without humans "owners". It's the humans who have problems with them.
If by “odd” you mean “he saved millions and millions of unwanted cats and dogs from ending up in kill shelters or being abandoned in fields”, well, I’d take that on my tombstone.
Oddly, I was inspired by Richard Dawson in “Family Feud” back in the 70s, who always closed the show with “Remember, kids, avoid position-dependent code and never optimize prematurely.” I still appreciate his advice.
His main job was "game show host". He just started using his immensely popular show "The Price Is Right" as a platform for a small "hey get your pets spayed/neutered" announcement at the end of every episode.
I think this author is missing a major piece of dog park social norms where spaying & neutering are concerned -- behavioral changes that (ostensibly) arise from de-sexing dogs, particularly in neutering males. Maybe they should ask these other dog park goers _why_ they are so interested in status of their dog's reproductive organs...
In my own anecdotal experience, my male golden retriever (who I've spent considerable time socializing and training since adoption at 8 weeks), started to display some territorial and dominance issues around the 18mo mark. This behavior was particularly apparent around other intact males of equal-to-larger sizes than him, and culminated in a defensive fight with another (intact) lab mix.
I made the choice to schedule his neutering that day.
Since then (~6 months ago), his behavior has mellowed out considerably -- far more so than what I would otherwise attribute to maturing. I try not to judge people that harshly who make the choice not to neuter in the area (urban US city), but at the same time believe too many minimize an intact Fuffy's higher (IMO) propensity for dominant and aggressive behavior in social circumstances. Too often have I heard, 'he's a <retriever/doodle/some other family dog..>, obviously he wouldn't hurt a fly!' and it really grinds my gears.
Having an intact dog in a denser area is a huge responsibility (beyond potential offspring) and good owners should recognize this..especially if they're bringing these dogs into semi-controlled environments with strangers -- who, I'd posit, are more concerned about a harder-to-control Fluffy stepping over the line and their dog getting injured or worse, rather than causing an unexpected pregnancy.
The social density aspect is an interesting one. Of course, there is still the option of not having a dog in such an environment. This leads me now to wonder whether it's not a bit selfish to decide to mess with an animal's hormones to get them to conform to an unnatural environment. Not casting aspersions; every dog I've had was spayed/neutered.
> This leads me now to wonder whether it's not a bit selfish to decide to mess with an animal's hormones to get them to conform to an unnatural environment.
Do dogs even have a natural environment? Dogs are separated from any natural source by many thousands of years, and done in a way to make them easy for them to be owned by humans.
Idk. I agree with the idea put forth by some of the other posters in that the natural dog environment is amongst humans. To me it’s about the ‘jobs to be done’ fit that’s important for a dog. If they are naturally (for that individual) placed in an environment activity-wise that’s positive for the individual physically and mentally, then density doesn’t seem such a big issue. The hormone messing is a fair point, but behavioral change isn’t the whole picture on sterilization positives, as I expect some with veterinary backgrounds would attest to - simply the one which dog park goers might be most concerned about (in my experience, at least).
Where all this comes in to play for me is that in rural areas there’s a lot more room for activities and less probability to run into ill-fitting or unsocialized/untrained dogs - thus mitigating a lot of social risk.
I think of it as a handicap but city dog ownership is not unattainable, given reasonably modest resources and hard work. I’ve lived in and raised dogs in both urban and rural areas, fwiw
My family never had neutered dogs, male or female, but we were living in a rural area where people and dogs had a "culture" of good practices.
Every households had hunting dogs, guarding dogs, shepherd dogs or just, you know, family dogs. I guess their role in this "society" was much clearer than in dense urban areas.
Interesting the behaviour mellowed after the fact. When we did it for our rabbit - because he'd already become a little grumpy and aggressive bundle of hate - the vet said it's probably too late to revert the changes but at least he won't hump our feet. I'd assumed it's the same for dogs.
Quite young still but I can't remember exactly. Definitely under 2 years and probably under 1, they mature quickly. He pretty much hates me now (male) but likes my wife, even though I feed him every day.
This article glosses over the historical mistreatment of dogs where millions were killed yearly, and then cherry picks and details a bunch of examples of Bad Things happening to dogs nowadays.
It ignores all the benefits of neutering just to make a point.
Also, my dog is neutered, and is not aggressive at all, EXCEPT towards un-neutered dogs. Where I live it's illegal to bring an un-neutered dog to the dog park, but some people do. When that happens I don't make a fuss about it, but I do leave the dog park early. So when I'm asking an owner of their dog is neutered it's not because I am pushing some bad societal norm, it's because I'm trying to prevent a preventable incident.
Could this be a nature vs. nurture case? I don’t have much experience with dogs, but is it possible that the people who don’t neuter their dogs raise them differently?
In my social circle at least, neutering your dog is the social norm. If you don’t, and then break the law to take your dog to the park, most people would say you’re acting irresponsibly. Perhaps these sort of people aren’t compelled to train their dogs properly?
Or to be more charitable, since intact dogs can’t go to socialization classes, is it any wonder that they are aggressive?
Intact dogs (of both genders) can go to obedience or dog sport classes (I'm assuming that's what you mean by socialization classes). It could definitely depend on the facility but I've taken classes across 3 different facilities with intact males and intact females (thankfully not at the same time).
That said, there could be some correlation there where less informed owners who don't train their dogs and don't neuter them. In general though, neutering has been shown (in the same dog) to help curb some unwanted behaviors. Trainers can and will recommend neutering in some cases [0]
The article mention that swedes are more responsible with their pets and thus do not have a problem with feral dogs, but I find the actually reason a bit more nuanced.
Sweden did had a catch-and-kill program about a hundred years ago. It is mostly forgotten here, but it had two parts. A law was made that all dogs must be ear marked (today chipped) and listed in the national registry with their owner, and any dog that did not have a marking was killed. When a puppy is sold it must also have a veterinarian checkup, and the first thing any vet will do is to chip it and fill in the register data.
If a registered dog run away and get lost it will likely end up at the police, and the owner will get a bill for housing and handling. If you sell a dog, a breeder better make sure the registration papers get signed or the seller will be held liable. This way there are not much room for a feral dog population to get started.
Nothing stops people from doing that but people do not do that. I've never in my life seen a feral dog here in Sweden, even feral cats are quite rare.
I doubt they would survive a winter where I live so that would drastically limit their population.
The author is claiming that dogs are rare in shelters now and that institutions are actively buying them from the same puppy mills that are being detracted. I can’t see that to be true- look at villa lobos rescue with over 130 pit bulls, and they have a nationwide show trying to adopt out their dogs. Hell my local aspca has 445 dogs looking for a new home within 25 miles of my zip code.
Yeah, that's my experience too. The shelters are full of less popular breeds and mutts. Also a ton of dogs with health problems. Usually they are neglected and have been abused constantly making them much harder to adopt.
I would estimate that at least half of the people who own dogs really should not. All of the aggressive, anxious, barking, fighting, and crying dogs I walk past just drives me nuts.
The weaker version of this argument which is less likely to be downvoted is,
"A huge fraction of the pit bulls which are currently in shelters are not compatible with most homes who want to adopt dogs"
Pit bulls, whether or not they are inherently aggressive (and let's be honest, you get more aggressive pit bulls than Golden Retrievers), can do a HUGE amount of damage when they are.
Adopting a dog which can't be trusted around kids, much less other dogs (which is REALLY common for pets which end up in shelters), is simply a non-starter for many families, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect otherwise.
And pitbulls are stronger than the average human adult.
Many of those videos show strong adults, sometimes multiple of them, and they can't overtake a single angry pitbull even when using blunt objects to hit it. Multiple children get mauled and killed by pitbulls every single month in the US alone. From the reported data, pitbulls are statistically more dangerous than any other breed.
An angry small dog can only do so much harm before getting a single kick, vs a pitbull. That's why the UK banned them.
Pitbulls are "especially bad" in a fight because they don't react to pain the way most dogs do (often, it does vary in individual dogs). They know something hurts but it's not a reason to stop doing what they wanted. The ones I've known often overcompensated for that, once they figure it out in puppyhood, and were especially gentle and considerate.
I had a bluetick / border collie hound that had the same oblivious reaction to pain; she got tangled in an electric fence once and chewed the wire through before i realized what was happening. Then went on to catch her rabbit.
That source can say anything it wants, and obviously people who want to believe their message will believe it. Those that prefer their sources to not have a singular ax to grind, such as the source you posted, will skip that one. No, more YouTube links won't help, either.
If I don't provide a source (because apparently qualified PhD expert interviews on national TV aren't a "source"), you mock me for not having provided one.
When I provide a written one which has citations from government agencies and hospitals, you just say "That source can say anything it wants".
Why don't you get a pit bull yourself, preferably one that has been in a half dozen homes and gotten back to the shelter because it killed several pets and injured young children, and then tell me how it feels like, if you don't end up on a YouTube video yourself first, that is.
Personally I prefer the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Dog Breeders Association to a single biased source that is basically the qanon of breed specific legislation.
The only reason that I have slightly more respect for dogsbite is at least dogs actually have teeth whereas the pizza place in fact did not have a basement.
There are plenty of pit bull lobbies. Most of them come from no-kill background because pitbulls are the most common dogs in shelters.
There is no national register for dog bites. You can see how coronavirus tracking goes to show how much of a feat that would be. All you can do is track evidence in newspapers and in online media. Interview ER docs, plastic surgeons, etc.
In response to your now deleted comment there are 90 million dogs in the US. I'm guessing you aren't for banning bathtubs despite hundreds dying in them annually.
No I'm not sure it's worth arguing someone on the internet when there is no good evidence documented either way. I think better reporting should be required. I see what I see and that's good enough for my opinion right now.
The biggest part I don't like is how people are being pushed towards shelters to adopt dogs and pitbulls of unknown origin are the highest percentage of dogs available in those shelters. Whether it's their bred in nature or their nurture. I think a combination of both, but I don't think these shelters should be pushing these dogs onto families. Especially ones that have killed family pets before and are being advertised as "good with children"
Basically you are now saying their isn't enough evidence so we ought to make laws based on your gut. I'm also going to need a source on shelters accepting animals that have killed other family pets and are subsequently advertised as "good with children" because it kind of sounds like something you learned from your facebook news feed.
Thanks for insult w/ the fb newsfeed. Thanks but no thanks I'm not posting my "friends" dogs on here that are being rehomed through pitbull only shelters. Never mentioned banning pitbulls. But would approve of stricter regulations around their adoption. Love debating with you, you are such a charmer.
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009)
Objective—To examine potentially preventable factors in human dog bite–related fatalities (DBRFs) on the basis of data from sources that were more complete, verifiable, and accurate than media reports used in previous studies.
Design—Prospective case series.
Sample—256 DBRFs occurring in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
Procedures—DBRFs were identified from media reports and detailed histories were compiled on the basis of reports from homicide detectives, animal control reports, and interviews with investigators for coding and descriptive analysis.
Results—Major co-occurrence factors for the 256 DBRFs included
Absence of an able-bodied person to intervene (n = 223 [87.1%])
Incidental or no familiar relationship of victims with dogs (218 [85.2%])
Owner failure to neuter dogs (216 [84.4%])
Compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (198 [77.4%])
Dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (195 [76.2%])
Owners’ prior mismanagement of dogs (96 [37.5%])
Owners’ history of abuse or neglect of dogs (54 [21.1%])
Four or more of these factors co-occurred in 206 (80.5%) deaths. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts, reported breed differed for 124 (30.9%); for 346 dogs with both media and animal control breed reports, breed differed for 139 (40.2%). Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Most dog bite–related fatalities were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention.
The source is the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association which is more reliable than one whack job living out her fantasy of being paid real money to pursue an anti pit bull crusade which began with a lie.
She was herself the victim of a dog bite which she has related several times giving different stories each time adding theatrics over time. Eventually the dog walker which had the dog on a leash lost control of her dangerous animal which dragged her, shook her, and tried to rip her throat out. The circumstances, aftermath, injuries, and other party, and even her original statement contradict this.
What actually happened is that while jogging she ran up behind the dog walker on a very narrow walk alongside a wall without giving any verbal indication of her intentions.
When she tried to go around the dog and walker she would have passed within inches of the dog startling it. The dog which had no history of aggression bit the woman on the arm twice bite and release not bite and shake, not drag through the grass, no attempted bite to the neck.
She sustained soft tissue damage to the arm fell and broke her arm in the fall.
She sued the owners home insurance collecting a substantial settlement for her own incompetence and insisting on the prompt killing of the family pet.
She then went on to make a career out of being a professional victim and duping people like yourself. She is a terrible human being and it would be great if you stopped spreading canine qanon around here and elsewhere.
Ok whether dogbites.org is a lunatic or not. I think there is probable evidence that these dogs are not good pets. Whether it is adoption pages stating that there shouldn't be any children, other dogs, or cats in the home. Gofundme for mauled children. Confiscated dogs, etc. Theses are not family dogs. They have been bred to fight and kill just like others have been bred to herd.
The person you now admit is a lunatic was your only source that pit bulls are particularly dangerous compared to ANY large breed. This is to say the level of danger directly and only corresponds to the fact that a large dog can do more damage than a chihuahua. Statistically buying your kid a bike is much more dangerous to their continued survival. Dogs that are raised properly aren't particularly dangerous regardless of breed. Like the bike its a small manageable risk you can virtually negate by not being an idiot and helping your kid not be an idiot.
What YOU want to do is take this decision out of their hands based on dog attack videos on youtube and debunked information from a person you now seem to agree is a lunatic.
I'm going to need to see an actual source for your claims.
I've never used dogs bite as a claim for anything. In fact I find that site unprofessional. You may be thinking of someone else. I have found plenty of primary and secondary sources, both online and in real life, to shape my beliefs. I'm open to any evidence to the contrary but having friends or acquaintances who have fallen into adopting pitbulls only to have had them euthanized or "rehomed" due to issues I am unlikely to change my opinion easily.
One thing I just remembered: Previous to Michael Vick's very public dog fighting bust in 2007 most dogs were destroyed after being seized from dog fighting(1). After Michael Vick's exposure organizations popped up to save these dogs. Now saving pit bulls is more popular than ever but not every shelter has the resources to do it.
To be clear they evaluated the dogs and adopted the ones that could be homed and placed the rest in a non family setting so that they could rehab them before being adopted out.
To revisit the prior statement you made
>but I don't think these shelters should be pushing these dogs onto families. Especially ones that have killed family pets before and are being advertised as "good with children"
If the article is intended to support that never defended position it does not do so. In order to evaluate that a journalist or interested party would need to investigate the adoption procedure and figure out if adopting families were properly informed.
Furthermore to be clear 3.2 million dogs are adopted from shelters. I was unable to ascertain how many dogs are rescued from dog fighting rings annually but surmise it is probably measured at most in the hundreds. This is to say that something on the over of 1 dog in 10,000 is a refugee from dog fighting. The fate of a tiny number of ex fighting dogs is of almost no relevance to the overall pitbull question.
They aren't lying about the breed of dog they aren't providing the shelters best guess as to the dog breed to the prospective owners prior to adoption. More to the point the link doesn't even state anyone was "caught" doing anything. This is literally you misrepresenting what your own link actually states.
In essence you were literally in the comment where you say they were caught lying the only one caught lying.
I will quote you, yourself, when you told me above "That source can say anything it wants".
You are bringing a SINGLE case of a "professional victim" and ignoring literally the over one hundred cases in my link with videos and photos of children, elderly and adults who got KILLED by pit bulls. Are all of those hundreds of dead bodies professional victims too?
One of the reasons “Pit Bulls” are attributed for so many attacks is because it is not a breed and on police reports when it is a mixed breed that looks vaguely like a terrier breed they assign “pitbull” because it is not like they are going to do a DNA test to determine breed.
It is also true that many people who want a tough looking “pitbull” are terrible owners who want their dog to attack and to be aggressive as a form of personal and home defense and raise them accordingly.
On the other hand there are plenty of examples of pitbull dogs killing or mauling the family's cat, dog, child, or grandparent completely randomly with no prior warning.
I didn't really know much about pits or have any opinion until one of my buddies adopted one and it killed his two cats with him trying to pry its mouth open. I started to look into the issue after that.
"With no prior warning" is a tough one. Pit Bull Terriers and other bully-type dogs are known to have high prey drives, and you can't really be surprised if one goes after a cat or small dog. I'm pretty tired of both the people who blame the dogs for everything and the people who are trying to convince the world that bully breed dogs are great beginner- or family-friendly pets. Certain dogs have certain traits that you can't train out of them. I love hamsters and rabbits, but I'm not ever going to get one as a pet because my rat terrier has an extremely high prey drive. It's just stupid to put any animal in that situation.
You must be able to control the dog you adopt. Not all dogs are good for every person. Your experience raising dogs, space available, physical strength, and your time should all be considered.
I have heard a good measure for physical strength required is that you should be able to carry any fully grown dog you own. If you can’t pick them up and carry them a short distance you probably do not have the physical stength to handle them.
Yes! And if that dogs keeps being aggressive and attacking and killing innocent pets around the house for several months and then goes and attacks a child or an elderly, you should be held 100% accountable.
Pets are like your children, you're responsible for keeping an eye on them always and to be accountable for what harm they cause to others, unless its truly a one-off case, which it almost never is in all the horrifying cases of dog to human attacks.
Not many can pick up and carry a St. Bernard. However, I agree that one must be able to control one's dog. There is no flexibility there. If you are attentive and diligent you can train the dog without resorting to having to overpower it.
Speaking of overpowering, I used to walk a German Shepherd at a shelter many years ago. He wasn't well trained and in the beginning he used to tug at the leash with all his might. He was rather strong and not being dragged along was a good challenge for any adult human. This was despite the fact that he had only one hindleg. Eventually I taught him to walk without a leash. However, I will never forget him because he demonstrated to me how strong dogs are. It is not hard to exert control over them but if it has to be via physical means, it is not easy.
And I would argue not many people should own a St. Bernard size dog.
However, I should clarify, the point regarding being able to lift a dog that you own is not so that you can physically control the dog in a dominating fashion (I am of the opinion you should not try to dominate a dog as with a large or powerful dog it could end badly). It is more so that if you are walking the dog and it suddenly pulls towards a squirrel or something you are not instantly pulled off balance. Also, if the dog were to be injured that you could get the dog to your vehicle to drive to the vet.
Your point, however, is well taken. Police K-9s may only weigh 50 lbs but easily take full grown men weighing 200 lbs to the ground. No one should try to dominate a dog. That teaches them that that is how you interact with people and they will eventually do it to someone else if not you.
This is a good warning. Whenever one adopts a dog that is not a puppy you have to be ready for anything. You don’t know their past experience or if they were socialized with children or other pets.
Some dogs do have a very high prey drive and may see small animals / children instinctively as prey. Typically this can be socialized out at puppyhood, but for some dogs it may require constant reinforcement. If it is not addressed at puppyhood it may always be an issue and the dog just won’t be suitable to have around babies and small pets.
You'll never convince the pit bull apologists. Polite society has decided that they're not going to hear about it because it goes against their intuition that no dogs are 'bad.'
I have some friends that have pit bulls. They never attacked a person, but they did attempt to kill a goat. I can't think of another type of dog that would maul livestock unprovoked with no history of aggression. They are just naturally aggressive, and anyone that says otherwise is a shill or ignorant.
Whether or not the message you’re sharing is true, the plural of anecdote is not data; and the only solution you find acceptable is the ending of hundreds of thousands of animals’ lives, many of whom have done nothing wrong.
The UK had the same problem when they banned pit bulls. Not a single dog was killed. They just disallowed people from getting new dogs, and the ones that already existed just died out of old age in their existing homes. If new dogs are found they just go to an animal shelter where they get neutered and that's it.
In some cases, like the US, unwanted (but legal) dogs go to Canada where they get new homes. Checkout YouTube for that, they all look like happy puppies.
Not a single breed-specific-legislation in the world resulted in any dogs getting killed.
What we're talking about here, is dog breed which single handedly are responsible for over 90% of fatalities and serious injuries should be neutered and not allowed to be sold to the general public. They can be in shelters, as guard dogs or used by the police or military, just not regular family homes with elderly and children who can't defend themselves.
Where did you get that gruesome idea of killing dogs from?! No one anywhere in the world has done that or even talked about it.
The correlation is that for some reason trashy people prefer pit bulls, they don’t train their dogs, and then the breed gets a bad reputation.
They have immensely powerful jaws, but are no more likely to use them than any other breed. There is an unfortunate increase in damage per instance but this again is no fault of the breed.
Anyone dealing with dogs knows the pit bulls are FAR more dangerous than other breeds. Their physical strength and jaw strength in particular make them potentially deadly.
Can a poodle kill you? In some edge cases maybe. Can a pit bull do it? For sure.
This is correlated with lower rates of spay / neuter as well. So you have an animal that is naturally MUCH more dangerous, and then you have that correlated with folks who LIKE that they are so dangerous and the bad outcomes multiply.
Want a poodle? Here you go. Want a pit bull? You should have to prove you are going to be able to train, care, etc for them and will keep them on leash in situations where they could kill others (ie, children's playground - yes - people bring off leash pitbulls occasionally - NOT a good situation).
BTW - same rule should apply to guns. Want a .50 cal automatic machine gun? You should need some kind of extra license given the danger you now pose.
IDK where you are, but automatic guns are very hard to buy in the U.S. You may be able to buy a pre-1986 model, but the bureaucracy is exactly as onerous as you wish it to be, as is the price tag.
Or are you confusing automatic and semi-automatic guns?
> There is an unfortunate increase in damage per instance but this again is no fault of the breed.
I don't think 'fault' is really the point -- the question is whether they are more dangerous. The 'unfortunate increase in damage per instance' is a euphemistic way of saying that yes, they are.
Please don't spread lies. Even stats from places without a huge population of "trashy people" (what a disgusting thing to call people) it is still necessary to ban them because they are dangerous. Not all of the world have huge slums, lots of drug dealers, trailer parks, dog fighting, etc. Look at dog ownership in places like Scandinavia and you'll see a completely different pattern - and yet the breed is deemed too dangerous, because it is the breed and not just the owner.
And most of those types of dogs are not good family dogs. Dog aggression, resource guarding, strength, high pain tolerance, bred to fight literal bulls, etc.
I can share some outcomes of their mauling on little children and the elderly if you would like.
If you bring any group of people and show them a variation of dogs and ask which ones are "pit bull", 95%+ of them will agree on the same dogs. Just because its multiple breeds doesn't make it an "incoherent concept".
DNA tests exist for dogs now, same like humans, and can unambiguously find if a dog is a pitbull mix.
pretty much any large dog can seriously fuck you up if they have a mind to. I've seen a chesapeake bay retriever crush a deer's head with his jaws. in the vast majority of cases, a properly socialized dog will not attack a human unprovoked.
Pretty much any mammal that is around 40+ lbs could seriously fuck that unarmed human up if it wanted or needed to. You’re not winning a hand-to-hoof fight with a deer or a mountain goat. The fact is that pit bulls are responsible for the super-majority of dog-attack-caused fatalities, at least in the USA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in...
Over a 30+ year span, pit bulls were responsible for 3,397 attacks where the breed was able to be identified, nearly 7 times as many as the next most aggressive breed: https://maxlawsc.com/dog-bite-statistics/
The study to which you refer is based on citations in newspapers as found by Animals 24-7. Animals 24-7 describes itself as “ ANIMALS 24-7 is especially noted for our in-depth coverage of attacks by pit bulls, other dangerous dogs...”. Who knows how much their bias affected their “study,” but I wouldn’t rely on it for the basis of my argument.
I only mentioned pit bulls because OP said that shelter had 130 unadopted pit bulls.
Whether or not they're statistically more aggressive than other dogs of the same size and socialization, that's a debate that'll get me a ton of downvotes here regardless of how I answer, so I'll pass on that one.
You would get less down votes if you make substantial arguments as people will be more apt to engage in discussion instead of down voting and moving on.
I shared a YouTube link with hundreds of videos of pitbull attacks caught on camera. Watching one or two of those videos should constitute a substantial argument if someone has an open mind.
From experience, I can spend a solid hour writing arguments and I'll get downvoted anyway by all the SJWs here who refuse to accept anything differing from they believe in.
Even if one person decides to watch any of those videos and changes their mind about getting a pitbull I'll be happy for saving a life and I don't give a damn about downvotes.
there are almost 80 million dogs in america. linking a video with hundreds of pitbull attacks is not much better than just saying your neighbor has one and it's mean.
the margin for error is probably higher with a lab or golden retriever, but it's irresponsible to own any large dog without committing to proper training and socialization. any large dog can maim or kill a human if provoked.
Please be cautious before getting a pit bull yourself or for a loved one. I don't see this discussion moving forward regardless of whatever evidence I present.
a youtube search query for a socially charged topic isn't evidence.
There are volumes of youtube search results for free energy, moon-landing hoax explanations, remote viewing, voodoo, whatever. The list goes on forever.
Right now -- this very second -- one can find videos of labradors mauling people, basset hounds mauling people, schnauzers , scottish terriers, again, the list goes on forever.
The difference? The public hasn't been shown countless scare-pieces on basset hounds & schnauzers, so it's not a topic of interest in the public mind.
those videos show real incidents, correlated by news reports, hospital and police reports and interviews with real scientists, all sharing their names and institutions. Nothing similar to whatever you're referencing in your comment here.
From this article on Wikipedia you've posted a link to:
> In a 2014 literature review, the American Veterinary Medical Association stated that "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous", and that "it has not been demonstrated that introducing a breed-specific ban will reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries occurring in the community".
> In 2012, the American Bar Association passed a resolution urging the repeal of breed-specific legislation, stating that it is "ineffective at improving public safety".
> In 2013, researchers in Canada found no difference in incidence of dog bites between municipalities with breed-specific legislation and those without it, and in 2008, the Dutch government repealed a 15 year ban on pit bulls, concluding the law was ineffective.
In any case, I'm not sure that having a legislation can be used as a proof of anything. In some countries same-sex sexual activity is illegal and penalized. What does this prove?
The "American Bar Association" is not a valid source about dog behavior. They're lawyers being paid to push whatever agenda gives them the most money. Not gonna comment on that one since its missing any other scientific evidence.
The 2014 American Veterinary Medical Association "literature review" is being picked and chosen from in the Wikipedia article. Quotes from the very same report that were conveniently missing from the Wikipedia article:
"While small dogs may be more aggressive their size means they are less likely to inflict serious bite injury except on vulnerable individuals"
"Certain large breeds are notably under-represented in bite statistics such as large hounds and retrievers (e.g., Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers)"
"...cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities, pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified..."
The 2013 Canadian study isn't being cited in the Wikipedia article. Instead, the citation is a link to an opinion piece that mentions the said study without giving any references to it (no links or even author or institution name). As far as I am concerned, that Canadian study is made up, unless you can find it and we discuss it. I never saw any respected author mention a scientific study and then fail to completely give any references to it, not even freshmen in university would do that.
On the other hand, this is an actual cited quote from that opinion piece that's directly linked in place of the Canadian study:
"Breed-specific laws strengthen existing dangerous dog laws by targeting some of those prime offenders."
The Dutch ban on dangerous dogs which was lifted on 2008, was more or less re-instated in 2017. Wikipedia conveniently forgot to mention that:
Using one law that in your opinion isn't sound, as an argument against laws in general having no merit doesn't make a lot of sense either.
A law isn't a scientific proof, but at a minimum it tells a lot that a problem in society has become so prevalent to justify passing said law.
If the number of victims and complaints were so negligible, the law wouldn't have had enough momentum to pass the all of the bureaucratic barriers, including the European animal rights groups, who are far more fierce than the US ones.
Breed specific legislation depends on the argument that certain breeds are more dangerous. It's illogical to posit this is so because the legislation exists its circular.
Scientists use statistics from hospitals. They find that 90% of brutal gruesome deaths are caused by one breed or variation of such breed, they ban that breed from being adopted.
Result? 90% less gruesome bloody murders of innocent children and elderly -> success, the law is here to stay!
Where is the "illogical" or "circular" part? I don't understand what those words have to do here.
Do you like to allow poisonous snakes and tigers to be owned by the general population without any special license and guards too?
Surely you could provide some studies that show that in areas with breed bans the rate of gruesome violent deaths are down 90%, or you could if that were real.
Outside of fantasies pushed by a professional victim there isn't such proof and on net the number of people killed by dogs is about 1/10 of the number that drown in bathtubs and you could do more for the world by demanding grab bars be installed in every bathroom.
Why are you comparing apples to oranges and claiming to care about science at the same time?
We're comparing the violent and fatal attacks of one breed of dogs with violent and fatal attacks of other dogs. How or why are you comparing that with bath-tub drowning? Might as well compare it with car accidents too.
Even if I come to entertain your train of thought, drowning in a bath tub isn't the same as watching your own four years old child's limbs get torn one after the other, and bleeding to death infront of your own eyes while being helpless against the beast (one example, hundreds more exist clicks away if you choose to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYVPeQKDeI)
Plenty of people provided scientifically backed links in this thread of evidence that pitbulls, as commonly understood and anyone can define with their own eyes, are responsible for the majority (over 70%) of fatal and violent attacks. You've chosen to ignore all of those and provide a SINGLE case of a "professional victim", while at the same time laughing and telling us multiple anecdotes mean nothing when we gave you hundreds of videos of dead children, dead elderly and horribly wounded adults and pets, all with their full names, locations and exact circumstances proving the animal was a pitbull.
I don't even understand where is your passion coming from. By banning their adoption, those dogs won't get hurt. The existing ones will live in their homes for the duration of their natural life and the shelters won't have to resort to tricking people into adopting them (https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...).
What's the harm to society if the US adopts the same UK regulations? Or what's the good to society by keeping these dogs around for adoption?
Me and others here for the BSL, are doing it after experiencing or hearing about horrifying experiences from these very strong dogs and what they can do to a child, elderly or even a strong adult.
Are you trying to somewhat equate this to racism or something? Because it is not. All humans adapt and become civilized and equal to one another through education and parenting regardless of race. That's not the same for animals. A snake will remain a snake, and a tiger will remain a tiger. A wolf can become a dog, but only after many many generations of select breeding. A pit-bull with violent history killing pets won't become a fluffy playful doggy just because you're smiling at it.
> I shared a YouTube link with hundreds of videos of pitbull attacks caught on camera.
Which proves nothing about innate traits. That pit bulls have a reputation that makes them prized with people that want to train dogs for aggressiveness (a culturalnrole in which they displaced doberman pinschers in a fairly sudden phase transition despite no change in the underlying innate traits of either breed) is not controversial.
So which dog breed do you like? If I send you one or two videos of that breed involved in a bad fight, will you have an open mind and be persuaded?
For that matter, do you drive a car? I could show you a number of videos that demonstrate the danger of cars.
And so on. Maybe folks are down voting you because a collection of videos isn’t a good argument. Maybe they have a pitbull in their life that they love. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a closed-minded SJW. If you are open-minded yourself, you must accept that maybe they disagree with you because they don’t find your argument compelling.
I get why you are passionate about this. I understand you want to keep people safe. I am sure if we could discuss this over a beer, we could find common ground.
While a bunch of videos don't prove that pit bull breeds are inherently more dangerous, maybe there's an argument that pit bull physiology makes them more dangerous when they are inclined to be violent. That's a more concrete assertion at least.
Personally I prefer the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Dog Breeders Association to a single biased source that is basically the qanon of breed specific legislation.
The only reason that I have slightly more respect for dogsbite is at least dogs actually have teeth whereas the pizza place in fact did not have a basement.
This article has a lot of "pseudostatistics" - that is, making broad statements like "Rather than a dog surplus, what we have is a shortage of pups" with little or no analysis to back it up.
For example, there are many animal diseases that used to be an instant death sentence for any dog or cat that ended up in a shelter with disease (and still are in most places in the US). Some pioneering shelters have developed programs that now save huge numbers of animals with these diseases. For example, parvovirus in puppies is very contagious and it's a grueling course, but puppies that survive parvo have normal lives and can be great dogs. Austin now saves around 500 puppies a year with parvo that end up in shelters. Most other cities still kill these animals, so adopting proven programs to save them would go a long way to ending any supposed "shortage" of animals.
Neutering improves life expectancy across many species including cats and dogs.
Behavioral changes will usually make for a nicer house pet too.
If the owner plans on not letting the pet breed, there aren't many reasons not to neuter besides philosophical ones.
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
We had to remove the womb of my brother-in-law's lady Pug because she had pyometra [1], if he hadn't noticed it on time the poor creature would have most probably ended up dead. Me and my life companion now own a 3-month old border collie and we're not planning on castrating him (granted, we live in Europe, not in the US).
I did not get the sense that this is a balanced perspective.
The author does have a point that not sterilizing your pet will likely lead to criticism, even though it's a more nuanced situation.
But still — the solution to all of the sourcing problems is "do your research, and get an individual, not a breed".
If there's an actual shortage of adoptable dogs in your area, talk to the shelters about it, and also consider _not getting a pet quite yet_, rather then taking random advice from the internet and telling people to breed their pets.
Personally I'm in France: much less neutering here, but also there's a serious feral cat problem in my village, and also too many puppies. And toxoplasmosis infection rates are massive... it seems like a much more obvious choice to sterilize free-roaming pets, but still many don't.
This is not the only such operation. My friend who is in that business and owns a prize-winning dog and a cat told me a few examples. Cats may get their claws completely removed so they don't scrath furniture. Smaller dogs may get their voice cords "fixed" so their constant barking doesn't annoy owners.
For myself I decided not to own any pets unless they could live naturally as they were created. (I own two neutered cats now but they were neutered before I took ownership.) I totally understand the author's sentiment, first the hesitation and then an absolute certainty that something is deeply wrong here even though you cannot yet rationalize it. The only thing I disagree with is that "it's easier to lie".
Do you mean countries/municipalities or do you mean rentals or properties? For the latter: the flat I own in the UK came with leasehold rules prohibiting pets in general, and “no pets” appears to be a common prohibition in the UK rental market.
It's very common in NYC, at least among properties that target lower/lower-middle class incomes. Which is a real shame, honestly, because cats are almost always ok, and they're much more likely to make huge messes and actually damage finishes by clawing.
It is by necessity. (my building has this as well). Lots of old apartments in NYC have thin floors, where you can hear your neighbor's steps. Having a large dog jumping up and down all day, is a major nuisance. Cats are much quitter.
if damage is a concern, this can always be handled with an additional fee/deposit. cats are much less likely to disturb or threaten the other tenants, which is probably why they get more leeway.
I've always found the additional fee/deposit a little odd. A flat fee feels like a money grab (if no damage would be done then the fee wasn't needed, and if damage would be done then a deposit would cover it), and the deposit is already more than sufficient to cover scratched floors from dirt being ground in by chairs or other non-pet sources.
Semi-feral dogs perhaps. In many parts of the world one must be cautious about the street dogs, especially if they pack up as they can be unpredictable and quite dangerous to individual humans.
yup, specially around places with a lot of trash, which happen to be anywhere in developing countries' cities, where dogs gather to find food. Very very dangerous. Even if you survive the encounter (unlikely, specially at night), you'll usually need a dozen shots to prevent a serious infection.
I like the way that's phrased -- it's the law to allow service animals, but they're only often allowed. Landlords have a lot of power, especially over anyone living paycheck to paycheck, and some of them will knowingly break laws if they think you're unable to fight back.
No one likes to have loud dog barking all day and night from their neighbors. Its not about enjoying power over people, its about making the lives of everyone around you less sucky.
You can always get a turtle, a fish a hamster, guinea pig etc and no one will even know you have one and you can enjoy their company just as much as a dog. Lookup YouTube to find evidence of how fun small animals can be.
Not what I said and not the point (or not the point I was making -- it was a tangent from the main thread). However they might personally feel about it, landlords _have_ a lot of power. Some of them use that power to break the law without consequence, presumably when it's financially beneficial.
To the rest of your comment, it seems you're conflating service animals (well trained, won't bark all day and night, legally protected, still sometimes banned by unscrupulous landlords) with emotional support animals (undefined training, might bark all day and night, minimal legal protections, often banned even by scrupulous landlords). Is that accurate, or is there something more to your comment that I'm missing?
My comment was about dogs that aren't trained well to be in an apartment situation. Service animals obviously don't fall into that category.
Its about someone having a loud dog that can't stop barking at night and then when anyone tries to talk to them about it they just claim that the other party are animal haters and like to enforce illegal clauses.
It is not the norm where I live: cost is brought up mostly but also guys uncomfortably crossing their legs when you mention it or 'it is not a real dog anymore'. The result: mountains littered with puppies every mating season and then refuges overloaded.
Every few years, some fund pops up to pay vets to do free neutering and spaying: that really helps most of the problem as most will do it then; just wish the other owners could be fined if their dogs causes the stray dog issue to rise again (which costs money; there is dog catchers, the pound, refuges, effect on tourism etc).
It’s not illegal to breed dogs anywhere in the US AFAIK. The act of leaving your dog un-neutered/spayed is looked down upon and suggested against because they can breed on their own (and produce a lot more dogs) if they escape their owners.
Lots of people breed dogs inside and outside metropolitan areas.
And can make A LOT of money doing so. A popular hybrid these days is the Labradoodle. Here's just one example of the going price for a desirable pup.[0]
As an aside, I do want to point out for the record (if anyone looking for a puppy sees this link) that Lancaster Puppies is a known platform for puppy mills. I would not recommend finding a dog there.
What do you mean by "this"? The headline? The article makes the claim, In 1970, less than 10 percent of licensed dogs were spay or neutered. Today, about 80 percent are.
That leave about 20% of licensed dogs and who-knows what percent of unlicensed dogs unneutered. This leaves plenty of space for both neutering to be the norm and for some people to breed their own dogs...
>When I told one guy that I was thinking of keeping Moose intact, he picked up his Shih Tzu as though Moose was going to mount his precious Tiffany at any second. “As if,” I thought to myself. “Moose is gay.”
Wait, what? I'm 95% sure dogs can't be homosexual but someone correct me if I'm wrong..
It's hard to conclusively draw a connection between "displays homosexual behavior" and "is homosexual" in animals, but homosexual behavior has indeed been observed in dogs (as well as lots of other species).
Interestingly, among giraffes, male-male sex is actually much more common than male-female sex, some studies found that up to 90% of giraffe sex was male-male. (One bit on Wikipedia says giraffes are occasionally described as "especially gay", which I found amusing)
I used to have 2 male dogs that would go to town on each other, so dogs definitely can be homosexual, but it's probably just pansexuality more than homosexuality.
I am always happy to read pieces like this that challenges the status quo.
However, I still think neutering should be the norm. Only responsible enough owners should be the exception. Liberty comes with responsibilities which are often overlooked.
Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon right here. I heard that Katie was had a substack about dogs, and within 24hrs I find this on hacker news. (Might just be how insulated by circles are)
Its more complicated (fiddly fine work) and you have all the drawbacks of the uncut male without the plus possibility of breeding from him if you wanted.
The equivalent of tying tubes for female dogs is possible; I gather. Again there's little point although the difference in doing is less. I seem to recall that dogs tend to regain fertility after a couple years too.
Neutering or spaying should be mandatory. So many people “breed” dogs thinking they are going to sell them, who have no business doing so. So many puppies and adult dogs fill our shelters, it’s very sad.
It's a complex choice with surprising implications see discussions in thread regarding different optimal timing for different breeds.
Would you have cops seize unfixed animals, vets report same, perhaps a tip line to report your neighbors? Extra cops to handle enforcement, extra beuracrats to manage and track compliance?
Since fixing all dogs would make dogs extinct I presume you wanted licenses for breeders. I'm sure the same people won't just pay a license fee and do the same things maybe we can require an an education program hire more paper pushers to write additional regulations, hire inspectors.
I'm sure this whole thing won't just become a massive tax on dog ownership ensuring dogs start at 2000 with a $200 annual tax stamp.
Everyone that ever wants to fix the world via legislation says that there ought to be a law ____. You have to actually enforce the laws and deal with implications.
There are a number of health issues that have been associated with spaying/neutering dogs including obesity, diabetes, cancer, cognitive impairment (Alzheimers type diseases) and joint problems like hip dysplasia, torn acls etc:
Male dogs especially seem to suffer significant long term health effects from being neutered. A much more humane option would be performing vasectomies and leaving female dogs their ovaries.
If we made ridiculous laws like parent poster suggested instead of just doing that you would have to get your state to modify the law and hope it didn't require modifying federal law and wait a decade.
1. Pyometra. Dogs do not have menopause, but they may stop cycling. When they do they can develop a uterine infection that can become life threatening in hours.
2. Perineal hernias. Unneutered, aging dogs are at risk for pelvic floor weakness that results in specialty surgery (and neutering), costing thousands of dollars.
3. Hit by car. Unneutered pets are much more likely to escape randomly and get hit by cars. Even pets that normally do not run away from their owners.
4. Mammary tumor. Unspayed or late-spayed females are at significantly more risk than those spayed at 6 months.
5. Pregnancy. Shocked pikachu face when the unspayed chihuahua actually did get knocked up by their friend's unneutered chow.
6. Bleeding. All bitches bleed during proestrus.
7. Behavior. The dog-park behavior people like in their pets is the behavior of neutered dogs. Unneutered dogs are much more likely to attempt to dominate the other dogs and get into fights.
That said, it's a trade off. Unneutered males definitely have a different growth pattern and develop a stockier build. They also seem to have significantly fewer issues with the cranial cruciate ligament in the stifle (knee). There are some other, more hand-wavey associations of cancer in golden retrievers related to neutering, but it's hard to tell if that's just an artifact of the data as it's more likely unneutered dogs appear at teaching hospitals for injuries (hit by car, fights) rather than for cancer.
I would love to just recommend people be responsible adults. I wish that the US could be like Norway, where people don't seem to abandon their unneutered animals, and they don't seem to have problems with their bad behavior.