My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Mandatory Spay/Neuter in Dallas? | Main | Ohio HB 366 »

January 23, 2008

Comments

Marjorie

Brent, as someone who specialized in (successfully) re-training aggressive dogs for many years, my first inclination is to profess that spaying/neutering will not prevent or cure aggressive behaviours, in and of itself.

Sure, many of the aggressive dogs I worked with were reproductively intact. Most weren't. Certainly, if a dog is already displaying aggressive behaviours, spaying/neutering will not, on its own, solve the problem. That I can say, with little equivocation.

I agree there is merit in remembering that irresponsible owners raise aggressive dogs, and many irresponsible owners don't spay/neuter. (Which is akin to my usual analogy, "Nearly all men who get prostate cancer wear shoes. That doesn't mean wearing shoes causes prostate cancer.")

However, with such overwhelming evidence that intact male dogs are involved in the majority of serious attacks, and having done no scientific research into this topic myself, I'm open to the possibility that testosterone may play a part in creating a bio-chemical environment that leads to more reactivity...or however you want to refer to it.

I'm a woman, so I can't really say, for sure, how testosterone affects mood, etc. Having studied psychology for many years, I do know that testosterone, itself, is not directly responsible for any specific thoughts, or for any behaviours that require learning and practice (such as hitting, swearing or, in the case of dogs, growling, lunging, or attempted bites). What has been suggested is the theory testosterone (or other hormones) can lead to an individual becoming more reactive, moodier, more anxious, etc. If the person/dog is properly socialized, he/she/it will react in socially-acceptable ways, regardless. If he/she/it has not been properly raised, he/she/it may utilize threatening coping strategies; ones that have been successful in the past.

What better evidence than the attempts at chemical castration of rapists? Since rape is not truly a crime of sexual desire, but rather one of power, chemical castration did nothing to stop the flood of thoughts that bring a rapist to the point of assault. Indeed, several of the chemically castrated rapists continued to assault women. They just weren't able to commit the act of rape. Chemical castration didn't stop the aggression or the thoughts or the violent behaviours.

Caveat

The studies I've read, as is often the case, contradict the popular wisdom about sterilization.

In fact, castration appears to increase excitability and activity in dogs.

It appears to increase reactivity, territoriality and nuisance barking in bitches.

Neutering will modify some male behaviours, such as roaming and intermale aggression and, to a lesser extent, marking.

In some studies, neutered females were the largest group of biters.

What's my point? We need more research into the potential health and behavioural effects of what is radical, life-altering surgery. This isn't about getting your ears cropped, it's important.

We definitely need more research into juvenile (pre-pubertal) sterilization. I am aware of only one long-term study, which followed pups for only four years.

Some of the health risks identified including growth anomalies, bone cancer, osteoporosis, cognitive dysfunction and the changes I mentioned above.

Hormones are powerful and necessary.

I am not opposed to sterilization per se but on consulting with many experienced breeders and others, I'd suggest that people wait until their dog is mature before neutering.

In Toys, dogs are pretty much adult by one year of age. Large breeds can take 2 or more years to reach maturity.

As with any therapy or medical procedure that needs more study, 'go low, go slow' is the best advice.

My personal opinion is that given the statistically small number of incidents studied, it is not possible to conclusively say that this or that factor, particularly reproductive status, is a valid contributor to the problem across the population.

----

When I was a kid, back in the Neolithic, nobody neutered their males. Only females had the surgery because people didn't want pups.

That was back when people used to just let the dog out for an hour or so to wander around, meet his friends, have doggy fun, etc.

This was in a fairly well off neighbourhood in Toronto called Lawrence Park.

My point is, doggy altercations were few and far between, dog bites were rare and as kids who constantly hung around with neighbourhood dogs without - gasp! - adult supervision, we were never threatened, very rarely told off, less rarely nipped by these calm, diffident dogs.

I don't know what's changed, but I wonder if the increased isolation of dogs these days due to increased dangers such as traffic, dopey people, etc, has made dogs more anxious - a dog that is free to wander around is usually not a risk or threat of any kind, obviously barring other factors.

----

In my view, forcing incompetent owners to neuter their dogs will have zero effect on the incidence of bites and nasty incidents.

It is the owner behaviour that will influence the scenario, not the dog's repro status.

A twit with a neutered dog is still a twit.

I'm not buying into the sterilization mantra, as you've likely noticed :>)

Michelled

I support MSN for problematic owners and their pets. ;-) That at leasts removes the option of this person causing an unwanted litter even if it has no effect on aggression. How many attack cases are we seeing where there was a female in heat or puppies around? At least that situation is remedied.

You also have to add a clause that the MSN applies to ALL pets the owner has -- some of them will simply dump the dog and go get an unaltered one. None of these MSN laws I'm seeing passed even addresses the complete issue.

BTW folks -- none of these laws will apply to commercial breeders. So all the dogs that will get pumped into society will come from questionable breeding.

Sabrina Kennedy

Nearly all show dogs are unaltered. And they are not usually biting or killing people? The conclusory assertion that altering="safe dog", altering="non-biting" pretty much is HSUS et al, and whomever they hire to pitch that line. The public in general will believe whatever they see first. Problem is they usually see what HSUS puts out there first. So that means we all need a better marketing/education campaign, bec only the educated usually read blogs. My suggestion is for everyone to post on craigslist regularly, bec thats where you have a lot of ARs and the uneducated--I guarantee your posting will be flagged off. That tells ya something right there--you are doing something right. As for the causal link between biting and unaltered, its basically a socieo-economic deal. BSL was defeated in TN recently, due in part to people using paws4laws online, and the built in email system to legislators. If 4,000+ people all mailed in against a proposed law, it has a better chance of dying. SB861 had far more than that, but the issue was decided prior to voting. (Leg's also like written mail/fax better than emails.) Anyone wanting to be heard on anti-pet issues can call in on Thursdays 6:30PST 646/595-4051 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/doglegislation

We are all talkers but we need doers to get things done when push comes to shove.

The comments to this entry are closed.