(Some) Stupid Nasty Neutered Male Dogs (lots are lovely too :-) )

You have to ask yourself - honestly - whether you have rose tinted glasses about your dog. We all do, to some extent.

But, it's also the case that people with reactive dogs also have rose tinted glasses, and they are often awfully quick to say "your dog LOOKED at my dog the wrong way", "your dog was asking for it....", and so on.

I'm the kind of owner who, if my dog is so much as a bit stiff, I bundled him off for assessment, and work on a solution. Most dog owners are not like this, and for all Charlie's faults, I do honestly think I can spot the difference between a bit of argy bargy because two dogs have not quite hit it off, and a dog that is reactive for no good reason.

I also meet a lot of reactive dogs. It's where I live in the city, I meet just an awful lot of dogs....

 

If you're the owner of an entire dog who is regularly encountering bad reactions from neutered dogs that doesn't mean that those neutered dogs have a generalised problem towards entire dogs or have some kind of 'syndrome'. All their encounters with you may be bad, which does suck, but you don't see their encounters with other dogs.

I can't see the vid with Charlie either (that is, it takes me to a yahoo log on page....but I'm on my phone which could be stuffing it up). Maybe that lady in the park who said that her dog 'does that to all entire dogs' actually has a problem because of HER behaviour towards her dog when she realises the other dog is entire....? Maybe the dog is taking his cue from her.

 

Sorry I can't see the vid either, it takes me to a yahoo log on page too.

 

I don't know what's up with the vid - and lots of my photo links to Flickr are broken too. I'll have a look later.

The thing is though, it's not rocket science to work out whether it's your dog or not - it's not like I've got my blinkers on and can't see faults in my own dog. And it isn't my dog. It's neutered dogs. Not all neutered dogs, some neutered dogs. They clearly react to Charlie and conversations with their owners often reveal that these dogs also react to other intact males. And this is the experience (with different intact dogs) of the instructors at the dog communication classes, the socialisation classes, my dog walkers, the pet dog class trainer.....

There is something about neutering a dog that results in reactivity to intact male dogs. I firmly believe it. Now, what that is, I don't know. If it were something I could change about my intact dog, I would (but not including neutering him though). But I suspect it is as simple as a strong smell, that is in itself designed to tell other dogs something, and the neutered dog is not used to encountering this and no longer smells that way himself.

I also suspect that this might not be a huge big deal to overcome if there is sufficient intact dogs around. In an environment were there isn't though, it might be wise for anyone thinking of neutering a young male dog to take some extra steps (if that is possible) to do some extra socialisation to intact dogs throughout his teenage months at least.

 

I wonder how much is due to the age the dog was neutered. Which goes back to the original post. Since you meet so many dogs, Julie, maybe you could get a feel from asking the owners. I would postulate that dogs neutered earlier would generally be more reactive to entire dogs than those that were neutered later, since the older dogs would have had more exposure to entire dogs on an even footing.

 

I definitely think that scent is an important factor. Way more important than we can possibly fathom.

It is tricky, as even if a desexed dog is a pain towards some entire dogs, it's not towards all entire dogs (based on my experience). But the same entire dogs seem to be the ones who are again and again on the receiving end. I don't think it's just that entire dogs smell different, but that some entire dogs smell especially different. Just my personal theory.

I also think that some desexed male dogs smell extra different and these ones are often the repeated targets of humping (from desexed males at least). That's based on observations and conversations at the dog park.

Unrelated to desexing/not desexing, there are other doggie characteristics that can inspire high excitement - very shaggy dogs like Briards and Komondors (the kitchen mop looking ones) are often not well tolerated on sight by other dogs. And a lot of dogs find Boxers and German Shepherds challenging. So body and face shape and stance can be issues too. The general rule of calm socialisation and positive experiences applies to all.... Obi used to be a right pain with German Shepherds but is miles better now that he has GSD friends he sees weekly at his daycare.

 

Yes, it's quite possible that some intact dogs are more of a trigger than others, for sure.

 

Me? Oban has an enlarged prostate that is probably the cause of the three bouts of dripping bloody urine he has had in the past year and a half. Ultrasound shows cavitation and signs of infection in the prostate. Right now he definitely has infection in his bladder. He was being successfully controlled with TCM but now it seems to be failing.

 

Oh poor man
Then you'll have to seriously consider it and deal with any behavioural issues later. i think he'll be just fine. he's 8, and obviously had good socialisation and training from you. Its not an easy decision to make. Rocco, being a rescue was castrated before i got him. I am however having serious doubts about leaping in to get Piper neutered. i know she's a girl, but some of the same issues apply. people used to think it 'calmed them down. a lot like letting them have a litter would, I'm going to think long and hard while i have the option. TBH, if Rocco hadfnt already been done i'd be in the same conundrum

 

Thanks Jo. My friend's 9 year old is being treated for an enlarged prostate right now as well. He is maintaining well on pms-finasteride but they check him every three months and if the Vet doesn't like what he sees going on that dog will be neutered as well.

It's not at all unusual for an intact male of their ages to have an enlarged prostate and as long as it can be kept in control the protective benefit of staying intact to hopefully thwart the much more serious risk of prostate cancer can be kept up. Of course not only are my friend and I wondering how a neuter might affect our boys in the behavioural department but we're also wondering if they've been intact long enough to still be protected from the prostate cancer. Which of course is no guarantee but the cancer is 4 x more reported in neutered than in intact boys and it is the more serious concern.

 

I'm not at all pro neuter for male dogs, I'm not exactly anti either though - I don't think it should be an automatic decision and the individual dog should be allowed to mature and then a decision taken based on the pros and cons once the dog's adult character is known.

While I don't believe that there are health benefits in neutering male dogs (the picture is more complex for females and I probably would spay a female dog) I'm not convinced there are huge disbenefits either.

So, if I had a dog with a health problem that would be solved, or improved, by neutering, I wouldn't hesitate.

 

Prostate enlargement is really, really common in older, entire dogs because testosterone is the trigger. Most entire males will end up with it by Oban's age. It may be painful (especially if there's a bloody discharge I would think...). In contrast, desexed dogs are very unlikely to have prostate problems. Desexing resolves the problem for entire dogs if they develop prostate problems.

Prostate cancer on the other hand is not at all common. In fact it's rare in dogs. It may indeed be four times more common in desexed dogs compared to entire dogs, but four times something that is rare to start with is still pretty rare....

I'd say that the risk of prostate cancer for Oban is pretty low.... At 8 years of age the likelihood of a behaviour change would have to be negligible. Balancing that against the current 100% reality of a problem prostate that's showing outward symptoms that may be pretty uncomfortable....well, I'd be booking my dog in for the op under those circumstances.

 

I get the feeling I need to reassure some posters that if neuter to protect the most immediate threat to Oban's health is what is needed then it will be done. We don't have all the test results back yet.

Yes, Oberon is correct. Prostate issues of several types are more common in intact dogs. Generally, as with human men, these are now dealt with medically. However cancer of the prostate is more common in neutered dogs by 4 times. A theory is that, unlike in human men, testosterone in dogs seems to have a protective effect on the prostate in regards to cancer.

Oberon is right, the number of prostate cancers reported is low to begin with but cancer of the prostate is more serious than other prostate issues because symptoms are often not noticed till it's too late and surgery to remove the prostate is very difficult because the urethra runs right through the middle of it. It's hard to get all of it out and it's hard not to nick the urethra while trying to do so, a thing that happened to a male human friend over 20 years ago with horrible after effects.

Testicular cancer in intact males is less common than prostate cancer. It's generally easier to notice the symptoms and it's usually much easier to deal with. The testicles are separate, almost external and it's a much simpler surgery to remove them.

 

I don't think anyone thinks that you won't be doing the very best for your dog, Snowshoe - often when we say things (particularly moderators) on threads like this it's for the benefit of people reading (a much higher number than those posting). We like the overall thrust of (what people might read as) advice on such threads to be balanced.

 

Snowshoe, you made it very clear in your other thread that you'd go for the op if that proves to be the best option for your dog. I know from that thread that you're waiting for an infection to clear up at the moment, and that your vet has said that you can't do anything until that happens. Not everyone will have read your other thread though. I definitely don't imagine for a second that you're being complacent about this problem. In fact you probably think about it all the time.....

In my post I just wanted to make the general point that it's important to consider the absolute risk of developing a condition. An elevated risk might sound dramatic when expressed as a percentage but may not actually represent anything much to worry about when you look at the actual numbers. It's like that recent kerfuffle about bacon increasing your risk of cancer. Let's say it does increase your risk by twice (or whatever) compared to people who do not eat bacon. That's a 200% increase in risk!! Sounds major. But the actual numbers give a more informative picture - eg what it means is if you take 100 people and deny them bacon for their whole life, 1 out of those 100 will get cancer. If you take clones of those 100 people and instead feed them bacon every day, 2 out of those 100 people will get cancer. That's what a 200% increase is but in real terms it's not much of an actual risk. Most people would say 'well, I don't care about that, I'll carry on eating bacon!'. When we're talking about small initial proportions a small increase in absolute numbers can be a big increase in percentages....but percentages give a misleading picture. In fact, researchers who publish percentage or proportion based results ("150% increase" or "3 times the risk") without the context (150% of what? 3 times what actual risk?) are guilty of sensationalism and poor scientific communication, in my opinion.

Anyway, I know you get that, Snowshoe, but, as Julie says, our audience is wide

 

I find this very interesting (even though I have a girl)
I would be interested in more information, and maybe some references for your information, if you can share it.
Right, for starters, I am rubbish at critical analysis of papers, but here goes.....

From a little search (I didn't find this easy, hence my wondering if you had some sources Snowshoe ) I found that the incidence of prostate cancer in dog is really very low - 0.2% to 0.6% - which I assume is a total lifetime risk. BUT I think the information from this research paper suggests that castration doesn't actually increase the incidence, but increases the chance of metastasis at diagnosis, to bone and lung mainly, but it sounds like overall, prognosis is very very poor after diagnosis, and most dogs are euthanised at diagnosis as a result.
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...al_cases_in_sexually_intact_and_neutered_dogs

Compared to in humans, where in the UK more than 120 men in the UK are diagnosed with prostate cancer every day, the incidence of prostate cancer is very low in dogs (cancerresearchuk.org)

From what I found, testicular cancer is actually much MORE common than prostate cancer.
"46% of dogs at necropsy" http://www.researchgate.net/publica...can_be_differentiated_by_immunohistochemistry
"27% of male dogs" http://www.vetsurgerycentral.com/oncology_testicular_tumors.htm

BUT they are easier to detect (because the testicles are external) are less likely to have spread, and prognosis is therefore better after surgery than prostate cancer in anybodies language.

I guess that as with everything, you need to weigh up the pros and cons, but on this evidence, which was just a 20 minute search, I don't think that I would neuter because of worries of prostate cancer (not sure it massively changes outcomes) but I might consider it once my dog was >2yrs from the testicular cancer point of view.

 

That's great drjs@5 , thanks for looking those up and posting. Your three articles are considerably more recent than my information which is from the Sanborn and Kustritz papers. As with so many health related things it's entirely possible that new research has turned up new results. This is exactly what we need, more research. It does make it difficult when articles contradict each other but it highlights the necessity to keep reading and up to date. Thanks.

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongT...uterInDogs.pdf
Long-Term Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay / Neuter in Dogs
Laura J. Sanborn, M.S.
May 14, 2007

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/pdf...ma.231.11.1665
Determining the optimal age for gonadectomy of dogs and cats,
Margaret V. Root Kustritz, dvm, phd, dact

ETA: Ooops, no, the page the Degner article is on is dated 2004 so the article itself must be at least that old. That article, the last link given above by drjs@5 , only deals with testicular cancer though.

 

Hmmm, it just got more complicated. I managed to download the pdf of the complete article at the first link provided by drjs@5 . It says, in dogs "castration is a risk factor for prostate cancer development."

I hope folks facing this decison will go and read themselves. Certainly it's easier to have someone, probably your Vet, just tell you what to do than wade through all the, sometimes conflicting, information you can find these days.

Since I found the pdf I'll put a link here, not sure if it will work since I went through another site to get at it. Nope, I can't, but here is how I got to it. You should see the download link.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=24384

The section I quoted above is referenced to two further articles. I'm going to try to find them as well. You will see them if you want to follow this up.

 

Yes, it is a risk factor and we've already worked that one out in this thread But the point that Jac and I have been making is that the risk is very low to begin with and is still low in neutered dogs. From the abstract in the article you linked to:

"The incidence of prostatic carcinoma in dogs is low (0.2% - 0.6%)."

That is a tiny risk. Multiply it by 4 (let's say neutered dogs have four times the risk) and it's still a tiny risk.

Maybe neutering has more dramatic negative effects for some diseases, and maybe equally dramatic protective effects on yet more diseases. But as far as prostate cancer goes it very much looks to me like a non-event.

Prostate cancer gets a lot of attention in dogs only because dogs are used as a model or analogy for studying the disease in human males. Otherwise I doubt it'd attract much attention at all.

I really, really wouldn't worry about the risk of prostate cancer for your dog. I'm sure that it's stressful enough, knowing that he's not well, without adding to it a heap of unnecessary worry about a disease for which the risk is negligible.

Yes, it definitely is a messy picture when it comes to all this health info...

 

One of the reasons prostate cancer weighs heavily with me is the difficulty of dealing with it. It's an extremely difficult surgery. So yes, the numbers are low. But factor in the severity of the disease, the difficulty in spotting it and treating it and to me the risks go up higher than the incidence numbers alone might seem to warrant.