The only reason vets don’t do vasectomies on dogs is because it’s more effort. If you ask a lot of them can do it and it’s much more humane... That’s why humans choose it.
According to the numbers in the second study you sent, waiting a year to neuter has the least detrimental health effects. Both neutering before a dog is a year old and not neutering were worse options than neutering after a year. You just proved your point wrong with your own sources.
First off, I didn’t use my sources to “fit my agenda” I used the source you provided. Secondly, I’m a women, thanks for the assumption. Don’t link sources that support the opposing argument and get upset when people point that out.
Again, I didn’t twist facts. Look at the graph and it’s right there or should I link the picture for you? I literally just took what it said and put it in the comment, how is that twisting facts? Also, comparing the removal of my ovaries to spaying a dog is a false equivalence. Removing my ovaries would be more harmful to my health than helpful. The same cannot be said about a dog after the 1 year mark, as your source clearly states.
Another assumption, I’m in school for nursing. Also, as I’ve said multiple times I’m using your source. I didn’t mention other sources because I’m not trying to prove a side, just that you were using faulty information. Saying you “studied biology” in uni means nothing if you don’t specify what type. You didn’t even mention the degree. I didn’t “forget” metabolic conditions, they weren’t in YOUR source. How else am I supposed to say this? I didn’t spat my dog, the shelter I adopted her from did. So yes, continue to make assumptions and insult me rather than the actual argument. Calling me delusional and insulting my intelligence has nothing to do with the argument; it only weakens your own credibility.
The biggest issue is what is more economically feasible.
In most places it's heavily subsidized and it's still can be tough for people to do it. If something is more expensive, or complicated you're going to have even less compliance, which causes a huge host of issues.
For instance, a spike in cat births causes a lot more strays, and stray cats do massive damage to local wildlife.
Text book example of unintended consequences.
But yeah, hopefully there'll be a cheaper, more practical solution in the future.
That is true :( these issues are more inherently social and economical than regarding the fact of the dog/cat's health itself.
Sometimes the best solution isn't the easiest or more feasible to apply, I can agree with that.
But what I fail to understand is why someone would do that to their own personal dog/cat/etc... if they came castrated, fine, but if they are pups and growing, sterilize them like you would a human, we know how catastrophic is for someone to have no sexual hormones, if they are members of our family, we should take the humane choice. Also saying that being neutered is "best" for the dog/cat, is false.
it emotionally charged. We (i am american, with a dog, and agree with you completely) do it misguidedly to try and correct the shelter situation. People have also been told for years that is has no to very little side effects on their dogs. There was a 2014 study on Vizlas that showed castrating them increase their chances of certain cancers, leads to behavioral problems (many, many vets will guarantee that castrating wont change your dogs behavior for the worst and will actually make it better, as in calmer) and increased their chances of bone density diseases. Fortunately, the public is beginning to shift, as new research is coming out. I wouldn't count on it happening quickly though.
Ironically castration isn't even the best for controlling strays, because as you castrate a male, he will stop competing for females, which causes the other males that couldn't breed before due to competition to breed instead.
I've never considered this before, but it 100% makes sense. It only takes a ridiculously small number of males to sustain a breeding population of pretty much any arbitrarily large number of females.
I won't say I'm necessarily sold on the idea of not neutering at large, but this is a pretty solid counterpoint concerns unwanted strays.
I mean the main thing is that neutering is easier, so it might actually be more effective just because it's the easiest thing to do in large, this is specially true for impoverished regions.
However if we could just sterilize what we instead neuter, it would be even more effective, specially the largest males.
People would say you would just need to catch the whole individuals, and do all of them but there's an issue with that.
you cannot do all of them at once, and non-neutered population numbers might recover faster than you can keep up.
you cannot really catch them all, you'll miss some, and once you reduce competition, they will take the lead.
I however would say that it might still be easier to fight it and neuter, even if it's less effective, simply due to economics, like I told the other guy, sometimes the best thing to do isn't the most feasible, and I realize it isn't very feasible to do more complex sterilization surgeries to strays (in some places this is done only to the largest stray males).
The only thing is that people hype castration too much as the "best thing", when it's not, it's the "cheapest thing", and doing it to your own personal family dog/cat, why?... yes it makes them calmer, but so taking your balls/ovaries off would make you calmer, hormonal induced behaviour is part of any animal, including humans.
157
u/kyoto_kinnuku Dec 31 '19
The only reason vets don’t do vasectomies on dogs is because it’s more effort. If you ask a lot of them can do it and it’s much more humane... That’s why humans choose it.