(Beth Clifton collage)
by Margaret A. Cleek, Ph.D
More than 25 years ago I was off-put by the claims of positive non-reproductive outcomes for neutering dogs. The recent ANIMALS 24-7 article Does castration really alter male dog behavior? reminded me of my concerns.
Proponents of surgical neutering, the sooner the better, were and remain largely concerned with pet overpopulation. Animal advocates who focus on pet overpopulation continue to vociferously promote early-age spay/neuter and to recommend strict penalties in the form of high license differentials for keeping unaltered dogs.
Their position tends to be that surgical sterilization is the only option, and the sooner the better for the health and behavioral aspects of the dog’s life.
(Beth Clifton photo)
Responsible confinement
I have long found this disturbing, for a couple of reasons. For one, even a quarter of a century ago I had already been involved in these issues for some time, and was aware of research suggesting that responsible confinement is a viable form of animal birth control.
Responsible confinement is, for example, a long-established social norm among German and Scandinavian dog-keepers, who have managed to avoid dog overpopulation and high-volume shelter killing, with much lower dog sterilization rates than had been achieved in the U.S. even in the 1990s, when U.S. shelters were still killing five million or more homeless dogs per year.
While realizing that promoting responsible confinement among U.S. dog-keepers might have all the effectiveness of promoting “abstinence” to suppress unwanted pregnancies among teenagers, it is true that many Americans, myself among them, have had generations of intact dogs who have never roamed at large or had any opportunity to breed.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Outcomes of surgical neutering are not all positive
Despite this history, surgical gonadectomy became the only socially acceptable choice among responsible dog-keepers, and has been promoted as having only positive outcomes.
While I understand the need to reduce surplus numbers, I cannot agree that the outcomes of surgical gonadectomy are all positive. A wealth of articles published in peer-reviewed veterinary journals challenge the notion that only positive health and behavioral outcomes, beyond eliminating the possibility of reproduction, result from surgical gonadectomy.
Indeed, the findings indicate that even reduced aggression, the most commonly cited behavioral outcome of surgical gonadectomy, is not assured. Some research suggests that surgical gonadectomy might increase aggressive behavior in female dogs, outside of the context of protecting litters.
Some studies indicate that juvenile neutering has some negative health effects on both bitches and dogs. Negative health outcomes from juvenile spay/neuter may be worse for large breeds and males.
(Beth Clifton photo)
“Non-surgical options for males seem important to consider”
Independent of my position regarding equality of the sexes in the human population, and shared reproductive responsibility for my species, nature and practicality dictate that eliminating the reproductive capacity of our female pets is more critical and has a more profound impact than sterilizing males.
Given that negative health aspects may be more pronounced for males than for females, intact females present more issues for pet owners, and non-surgical ways of eliminating reproductive capabilities are becoming available, non-surgical options for males seem to be an important strategy to consider.
Meanwhile, to promote acceptance of castrating male dogs and cats, veterinarians and humane organizations promoted the notion that neutering might reduce aggression and other behavioral problems until this idea became commonly accepted, and is today claimed as a positive effect of surgical neutering that non-surgical options might not achieve. Yet there is little or no evidence that surgical gonadectomy ever achieved these effects in the first place.
(Beth Clifton photo)
Addressing the wrong end of the dog
The supporting evidence for the idea that castration might make dogs safer, for example, came almost entirely from observation of the effects of castration on cattle and other hoofed species, among whom only the most aggressive mature males breed at all, while other males tend to live apart in bachelor herds.
In fact, castrating dogs to solve behavioral problems is addressing the wrong end of the dog. Neutering may alter the motivation behind a dog’s behavior, but not the behavior per se.
For example, if a dog is getting out for the sole purpose of breeding bitches in season, if you neuter the dog before this behavior occurs, the motivation and hence the behavior would be reduced. But if the dog is getting out initially for the sheer joy of running, sniffing, and eating horse poop, garbage, whatever, neutering the dog will have no impact on the behavior.
(Beth Clifton photo)
Aggressive behavior is complex
Conversely, if the dog is getting out chiefly to go to bitches and breed, neutering after the behavior is established will not have much impact on the behavior, even though the dog will no longer produce offspring.
Aggressive dog behavior, and the motivations behind it, are complex, as the ANIMALS 24-7 article Does castration really alter male dog behavior? explores in depth. Drives and motivations vary by source, and according to some studies, by breed. I doubt that it is possible to come up with any definitive proven statement on the issue.
For example, if the motivation behind an aggressive incident is competition among male dogs for a female in season, neutering before the behavior is established may be effective, but if the motivation for aggression is prey drive, or a propensity to engage in kill-or-be-killed behavior, neutering will not impact the behavior.
(Beth Clifton photo)
Surgical s/n has been oversold
It is a very positive development that we have achieved the dramatic reduction in surplus dog and cat births that has in turn reduced animal shelter intake and killing by approximately 85% since the 1970s. This has been achieved largely through surgical spay/neuter.
The fact remains, however, that this was achieved in large part by persuading the public to buy into junk science and “facts” without factual substance.
The pitch for surgical gonadectomy from veterinarians and the humane community resembled the bogus claim now often made about pit bull aggression that “it is not the dog, it’s the people.”
We have been told, over and over, until most of the public believes it, that neutering will “fix” everything about the dog.
(Beth Clifton photo)
“Calming the dog down”
People will claim, for example, that neutering affected the behavior of their own dog profoundly, especially by “calming the dog down.” But how often is this really just a natural outcome of the dog maturing out of the puppy stage, or a positive outcome of training that was already in process, or followed the neutering?
Acceptance of the need for reproductive control of our pets has been one of the most successful social change programs of all time. The results, achieved in just one human generation, are phenomenal.
I doubt that we will ever go back to the time when vast numbers of people allowed their pets to have litters so that their children could “experience the miracle of birth,” as was once common, or because breeding pets looked like easy money, or because they just didn’t care enough to prevent pregnancy, when a trip to the pound to surrender unwanted puppies and kittens was a convenient option.
(Beth Clifton photo)
Pit bulls & Chihuahuas
As a society we have largely come to accept stewardship and the need to control pet birth.
It cannot be denied however that this has been differentially embraced by sub-populations of dog-keepers. Thus pit bulls and Chihuahuas are over-represented in the surplus pet population, continuing to keep animal shelters filled to capacity. Both of these breeds have significant issues with negative and aggressive behaviors which render them inappropriate for most homes.
I personally feel that it is wrong for shelters and rescues to rehome these dogs as if this were not true. I support all efforts to target these populations of dogs and owners to provide education and assistance to reduce their continued proliferation, and have for over 25 years.
Margaret Anne Cleek
I do not condone telling the public that the issues associated with pit bulls and Chihuahuas are solvable with socialization and neutering, except to the extent that neutering helps to prevent the births of more pit bulls and Chihuahuas for whom there will never be good “forever” homes.
“All dogs are not created equal”
Success in eliminating pet overpopulation is not just about gonad removal.
What I would like to see now is a paradigm shift in how the humane community is marketing dogs. In particular, I would like to see the humane community stop trying to sell the notion that the only available dogs should be the offspring of the irresponsible.
Beth & Merritt Clifton
Animals 24-7
People do have preferences and requirements for the dogs who share their homes. All dogs are not created equal, and a snip and a hug cannot solve all problems with aggression or other behaviors.
The truth needs to be told or we will continue to see tragic outcomes.
Please donate to support our work:
http://www.animals24-7.org/donate/
Related Posts
Three dead, two critically injured, in hotbeds of pit bull advocacy
What do you do when duck hunters start shooting up a county beach?
Last acts for animal circuses in Russia, India, New Jersey, & Hawaii
Legalizing California Battery Cages: HSUS & Egg Industry Redefine Proposition 2 in Toxic Ballot Measure
Hunter gets 7 to 20 years for killing teen he mistook for a groundhog
Ceasefire halts cat shootings in East Bay Regional Parks––for now
Very thought provoking article — persuaded me to look at the problem in a new way. I see the problems with surgical castration but would be interested in whether you think chemical castration offers any better possibilities. I have been told that ‘responsible confinement’ is widely practiced in certain northern European countries and wonder (at the risk of making a too-sweeping generalization) whether this is linked to a greater sense of collective social responsibility than we find in this country.
I have to say that decades of rescue work and animal law practice have made me feel that ‘responsible confinement’ is not a realistic alternative given the extreme lack of social responsibility toward animals prevalent in the U.S. Maybe I’m wrong — I would like to be.
Last point: Despite being immersed in animal lore I know I have big gaps in my knowledge & experience. Honestly did not know there was a Chihuahua overpopulation problem — in my experience their size & ease of care makes them highly sought after for adoption. Will look in to this more widely.
Thanks again for a very provocative article!
I appreciate that Animals 24-7 allows thoughtful and well-reasoned alternative positions to be aired. I believe passionately in spay/neuter, but I am happy to study other perspectives.
Standing ovation for Dr. Cleek’s thought-provoking and common sense laden article!
I was with you, until your grouping Chihuahuas with pit bulls…please! Yes, they are both over-represented in shelters, but the Chihuahua rescues I have known and loved, have been loving, delightfully funny, and smart dogs. Of course each dog has their own personality, but to make a sweeping statement about not making good pets, that is just wrong!
Yep, I agree. Wonderful breed, the Chihuahua.
The lack of available dogs from a reputable source is heartbreaking to anyone who values the human/dog bond. Yet the rescue world and the good breeder world continue to pretend this crisis is not happening and seem offended at the idea that they have any responsibility to help potential dog owners find a good pet. The rescuers view their only responsibility as finding a safe place for their dog to live for 10 years, regardless of whether the dog makes the owner’s life a richer place or a living hell, and the breeders view their only responsibility as creating a new generation of competition/sport/working dogs to carry on their breed’s history. No one is looking out for pet dog owners in this situation, despite the obvious issue that if pet owners don’t exist, neither will dogs – the only reason dogs haven’t been regulated like firearms is the fact they’re widespread and a majority of average people like them. Take that away, and there will be dog bans that make the pit bull bans and the anti-puppy mill regulations look minor. But the two main reputable suppliers of dogs are indifferent to the average owner. The new experience of dog shopping for average pet owners is to be rejected by the shelter system because they do not want a pit bull, and to be shut out by the ‘responsible breeder’ system because the breeders don’t want to ‘waste’ their dogs on ‘just a pet’ homes.
I’m worried about the future of dog ownership. It increasingly seems that both the rescue and the breeder worlds think that dogs are simply too good for most people. Rescue is obsessed with the idea that anyone other than a rescue volunteer will hurt/neglect/ruin a dog. Breeders are consumed by the theory that dogs are either carefully selected/nurtured genetic markers or worthless trash rescues. What hope does the average person have of finding a safe pet dog with these losers running things? I’m no longer surprised that puppy mills and other disreputable breeders continue to thrive. The ‘good’ rescue/breeder communities are driving people away in droves.
Every show/competition breeder I know (and I am one myself) places companion (pet) animals from just about every litter. Very rare to have all the puppies make the grade for show. That said we are not all that numerous, the responsible ones, and require s/n on our pet puppies, which turns off more “everyday pet owners” than you’d probably guess, and of course keeps our numbers low by virtue of the fact that someone has to work very hard to join our ranks (we won’t simply hand just anyone an intact dog, which may discourage people who eventually might have been reputable breeders themselves from even starting). I see so many people on Facebook looking for dogs of my breed with “full rights” who don’t have a clue about how difficult my breed is to raise and how to do so responsibly. People don’t take the time to research something as complicated as dog breeding most of the time, and think they can just hop right in.
I have to agree some rescue groups (and likely some breeders) can go WAY TOO FAR in their ideas of what qualifies as a good home. I am thinking mostly of a very nice, stable, married couple that works for NASA, co workers of mine, who applied at a rescue and was very nearly denied for no reason other than they both had jobs. WTH? They already had a previous dog who they loved and cared for for a decade, and several references vouching for that dog being happy and well cared for her whole life. They had to jump through so many hoops it was absurd. Oh, and yes I have heard from puppy buyers myself that some breeders turned them down because they work, too. How is anyone supposed to pay for a dog? Are wealthy retirees the only ones worthy?
I won’t sell to someone who won’t s/n their pet, someone who is careless with them (letting them run loose, neglecting their grooming, etc), I have a toy breed so small children are almost always a non-starter (but it does depend on the child/parents to some degree) and all my dogs are microchipped and can be returned to me at any time for any reason, but beyond that I am not absurd in my inquiries into their personal life. Of course, some breeds have to be more cautious because their potential for aggression if poorly trained is much higher, so breeders are right to be more cautious in screening those homes. I get applications on a daily basis from people who would make great homes, but I simply don’t have puppies available most of the time. I do try to refer to friends that might, but even so there are plenty of people who don’t have the option of buying from a reputable breeder because there are so few of us, and AR activists have made us out to be the “bad guys” so less people are interested in even carrying on our unique breeds into the future. It will be a sad, sad day when all the dogs are gone because they have succeeded in their mission…
Elizabeth, your experience and mine are quite similar. I typically have 1 litter a year from which to make my next show prospect pick.
This usually leaves 2 or 3 pups to place as companions for individuals and families. I feel I’m selective with choosing where my pups and dogs go, but not over the top obsessive about it. These are very nice pups from health and temperament tested, well bred representitives (i.e. show Champions) of their breed. My prices are 2/3 to 1/2 what ‘pet shops’ want for mass produced pups from untested stock.
Yet, I often take grief from the ‘adopt dont shop’ folks saying I’m being irresponsible because I breed my dogs. While they are selling pups and dogs who owe their very existence to irresponsible animal husbandry habits. Think on that a bit…
The author and I agree that confinement is a reasonable alternative to s/n. I will say that in well over 55 years of animal ownership, I have never has an unintentional litter. In 20 plus years of actively breeding, my success ratio of breedings to a live litter is about 60%.
My placement agreement specifies waiting until 18 to 24 months to s/n, as this allows the pup full access to hormones while growing and maturing. Recent studies have shown the advantages to waiting to s/n, and the disadvantages to pediatric s/n.
Something that truly concerns me is the importing of dogs to supply the retail rescue trade. At the beginning I said our dogs will be adversely affected by parasites and diseases they have no natural immunity to, the Vet community is unfamiliar with, and have no treatment protocols in place for. I believe we are seeing the tip of that iceberg in the virulent flu that swept thru within the past year.
I’ll get off my soapbox, but could go on farther.
Of note to this article, over the weekend I met, for the first time, a Chihuahua/pit cross! Frankly I don’t know (and don’t want to know) how such a thing would be physically possible, and you really have to wonder about the dog owners who would enable such a mating.
Hopefully the pit bull was the mother, rather than the other way around. I really, really hope that it was an accidental breeding; I would hate to think that any dog owner could be so foolish and short-sighted and selfish as to deliberately breed pit bull/Chihuahua crossbreeds.
Thank you, thank you!! Far too many mainstream and unprofessional people, among them a large majority of rescue personnel, believe all things can be fixed by love….and it’s just not true. I purchase beautifully bred dogs of great structure, temperament, and health testing from Hall of Fame breeders, because I don’t want dogs with baggage. I buy my dogs for specific purposes and train them to do dog sports, trials, shows, etc. I will NEVER want a poorly -bred pit bull or Chihuahua. I want what I want, and always will. Trying to misrepresent the basic nature of a certain breed is irresponsible and can get people mauled or killed, especially children. The most irresponsible “breeders” continue to produce ill-bed animals year after year, clogging our shelters and making it impossible for the average family to locate a sweet, calm dog of any mix which doesn’t include pit bulls or Chihuahuas. Thank you for making this viewpoint into the general population!