|
|
|
|
|
Well, why the heck not? Though vasectomies have long been out of favor in the veterinary community (not that they were ever popular), there’s no reason why I wouldn’t consent to snip a bit of tiny tubing through a small incision over taking out the testicles—as long as the owner understands that testosterone and all its effects will still be on hand to work their mysterious charms.
Sure, neutering will typically rid you of the roaming, the pee-peeing over any available surface, freaky behavior around bitches in heat, and the triple terror of testicular tumors, perineal hernias and prostatic enlargement. Yet sometimes owners want just the reproductive issue addressed, thank you very much.
But the jury has spoken—for now, anyway. The veterinary establishment is loath to relinquish its recommendation that full castration (neutering) is the end all and be all when it comes to canine sterilization.
Indeed, vasectomies are so rare that I recall being laughed at by my professor in my Principles of Surgery lecture when I asked whether anyone was performing this technique in lieu of castration. That was fourteen years ago when I was still stupid enough to slink back into my seat and make myself invisible after such an oratory “fiasco.”
Now that I’ve wisely shed such inhibitions, I can proudly proclaim: Vasectomies are surgical procedures, too! They have a place in vet medicine along with the unrecommended (but still sometimes necessary) anal gland-ectomy and feline thyroidectomy. Yes, sometimes they are indicated.
Given the new wave of discussions on the potentially dubious medical benefits of castration, it seems reasonable to look to vasectomies as a sound solution for those in doubt as to whether a normal neuter is best for their dog.
Today’s patient was a perfect example: A young, fit Frisbee dog, this Border mix was all muscle. His owner wanted to ensure his “safety” around her friends’ breeding bitches for a couple more years of competition on full testosterone overdrive. She’d read about vasectomies online and immediately knew “Rolf” needed one.
It just made sense. “No problem—I’ll do it.” (Though I’ve never had cause to do one before.)Afterwards, I had to wonder: Why haven’t I ever been asked about this before now?
Though it’s an easy surgery (far less painful than a routine castration, with fewer complications, to boot), it’s clear that we vets have serious power over what procedures become accepted as the norm. Yet as science advances, as it inexorably does, what was laughed at by a gray-haired professor over a decade ago may just be the most responsible thing I might advocate ten years from now.
Three cheers for choice in sterility!
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Next time, given what I've learned about some of the problems with sterilization in males and females, I'll push for a vasectomy instead. Wonder if the castration police will accept it as 'neutering'? Guess we'll find out.
I suppose tubal ligation is also an option?
Where would you suggest one look for a canine surgeon that has experience in this?
If the Lords of Dog Shows really cared about helping to select breeding stock, there would be classes for sterilized animals -- because when a really good breeder is making breeding decisions, he or she wants to know about the quality and characteristics of an animal's siblings, uncles, aunts, and previous progeny. Of course, if it was about selecting breeding stock, no dog could be entered until it had all the breed-appropriate health clearances, passed a rigorous temperament test, and in working/hunting breeds, passed some sort of working or field test. But I digress.
And in my experience, neutered dogs show just as much - often more - likelihood of demonstrating undesirable behaviors like humping or aggression. Those are (in my opinion) more issues of training and basic temperament than hormones.
For anyone reading this who doesn't think there are any benefits to leaving dogs intact, I refer you to Dr. Zink's article at http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html and also a review of the applicable veterinary literature at http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffec...
ASCA (Australian Shepherd Club of America) has a full Altered Conformation program for the dogs in its registry (which means it's limited to ASCA-registered Australian Shepherds). Dogs receive an A-Ch for Altered Champion when the requirements are met. Altered and intact animals never meet directly in conformation -- parallel programs. Animals can start in the intact program and take any points earned with them if they are subsequently altered. Dogs that finished their Ch while intact can be entered in Altered Best of Breed competition if subsequently altered.
My own personal view is a bit different, I become mildly annoyed, with the assumption that keeping my males intact, automatically mean I am promoting a stud/show dog. Hardly the case, since the 3 intact males I've owned, have NEVER been bred or offered at stud. And to mention, that all 3 have been in a household of intact bitches, at one time or another, gives folly to the "accidental breeding" theory, if one is responsible.
I have no concerns, at least, as of yet, of my lone intact 4 yr. old male "marking all over the house", displaying unwanted behavior, roaming or agression, OR impregnating a wandering, unknown canine. For my dogs "protection", they do not roam free!
An exception to the published study, my longest-lived male (over 2 yrs. beyond average life span) and fully intact, humanely euthanized due to advanced osteosarcoma.
http://www.neuticles.com/
Finally, the world may be open to this humane alternative for controlling pet overpopulation...
cowboyrancher@gmail.com