Chemical castration

rowan666

rowan666

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 February 2012
Messages
2,143
Location
cheshire
Visit site
Anybody tried this?
I've been looking into it as I'm reluctant to put my lad through GA, he doesn't display any unwanted behaviour and is never off the lead in public so he doesn't actually need to have his balls lopped off but he will never be bred from so its just something i've mulled over. There seems to be a minefield of conflicting advice though, my boy weighs in at nearly 70kg now, whopping huge mastiff and no he's not overweight just seems to never stop bloody growing despite being 4yrs old in March (hence why I haven't already done anything about it). If chemical castration isn't a viable option then he won't be going under the knife.
 
Do consider the increased risk of testicular and prostate cancers if left intact vs the risk of GA.
 
If there is no reason to castrate him then I would leave him entire.

I had a friend who tried the Suprelorin implant in her GSD to see if it would lessen his aggression towards other males and it did seem to help (and with no side effects), so she then went ahead and had him neutered.
 
Theres a big long post from me somewhere on here. My whippet had it. It served the purpose I wanted it for, which was to see if he was just a little git or if there was a hormonal element. Its not something I would do just in case though.
 
WorkingGSD said:
You can get either a 6 month or 12 month implant.

http://www.virbac.co.uk/suprelorin
Click to expand...
That's interesting. The JRT had the suprelorin implant at age 8 or 9 yrs, I wasn't offered a choice of length of efficacy but was told it would last 6 months. It worked very well at calming him down and lasted for 2 years +.

New folk had moved in over the road with several entire bitches, he was very randy and unsettled until the implant.
 
I had chemical castration done for my GS x Springer who was a very nervous fear biter, it worked brilliantly so followed it up with surgery. That didn't work at all, his behaviour went back to post implant immediately. Was very odd, vet flummoxed!
 
Can I ask why those of you who have not opted for castration as the first option wish your dogs to remain entire? Are you intending to breed from them in the future or is it a personal preference and, if so, on what is it based? I believe that many dogs in less affluent areas of the country are not castrated and I always assumed it was due either to cost or a wish to live vicariously through one's dog somehow, urgh!!
 
I make a neutering decision based on the dog as a mature adult - and am neither pro neuter nor pro entire - it depends on the individual dog for me.

I currently have three dogs - two are entire and one is neutered. I have never had any plans to breed - although my WL GSD is being used at stud twice next year but this was never a factor in my keeping him entire.

There is an abundance of reading on the internet about the pros and cons of neutering, so it is really up to the individual owner to arm themselves with as much information as possible and make a decision based on their own findings and their own dog. There are health benefits in both cases, and behaviour benefits in either case too, so I don't think it is as simply as saying neuter all or don't neuter at all.

Oh and for me, it has nothing to do with cost or that I wish to live vicariously through my dogs! :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why do you think he will die under a GA I would think that is very, very rare. I am a great believer in castration unless it is really important that you want to breed from them. I also think they look much better trotting down the road looking neat and tidy behind.
 
"Oh and for me, it has nothing to do with cost or that I wish to live vicariously through my dogs!"

Glad to hear the second part of that sentence as it strikes me as a rather revolting way of seeing your dog!!
 
druid said:
Do consider the increased risk of testicular and prostate cancers if left intact vs the risk of GA.
Click to expand...

Two significant studies released in 2013 showed that the disease rates for hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, lymphosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, and mast cell tumour were significantly HIGHER in both males and females that were neutered either early or late, compared with that of sexually intact dogs. Specifically, early neutering was associated with an increase in the occurrence of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, and lymphosarcoma in males and in the occurrence of cranial cruciate ligament tear in females.

AVMA Journal:
https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/130401s.aspx

The study report:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0055937

Another major study (done on Hungarian Vizslas) has shown that, regardless of the age at the time of neutering, altered dogs had "significantly increased odds of developing mast cell cancer, lymphoma, all other cancers, all cancers combined, and fear of storms, compared with the odds for sexually intact dogs."

So food for thought and I don't believe it is as simple a choice as we once all believed it to be.
 
Snowy Celandine said:
"Oh and for me, it has nothing to do with cost or that I wish to live vicariously through my dogs!"

Glad to hear the second part of that sentence as it strikes me as a rather revolting way of seeing your dog!!
Click to expand...

I found the second part of the sentence decidedly odd :D I have never even considered that this might be why some people keep their dogs entire!!
 
WorkingGSD said:
I found the second part of the sentence decidedly odd :D I have never even considered that this might be why some people keep their dogs entire!!
Click to expand...

Really? I thought it was a fairly common interpretation of the situation :) I've even heard it expressed on television by the male owners of some of these entire dogs. They honestly seem to regard their dog as an extension of their own body in some weird, unfathomable and entirely grotesque way :o
 
Snowy Celandine said:
Really? I thought it was a fairly common interpretation of the situation :) I've even heard it expressed on television by the male owners of some of these entire dogs. They honestly seem to regard their dog as an extension of their own body in some weird, unfathomable and entirely grotesque way :o
Click to expand...

Ha ha well that's men for you :D
 
Yup, I bet some of them (not you, obviously!) walk with their legs wide apart for a few days after their dogs have had their bits chopped off, ha ha :D
 
WorkingGSD said:
Two significant studies released in 2013 showed that the disease rates for hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, lymphosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, and mast cell tumour were significantly HIGHER in both males and females that were neutered either early or late, compared with that of sexually intact dogs. Specifically, early neutering was associated with an increase in the occurrence of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, and lymphosarcoma in males and in the occurrence of cranial cruciate ligament tear in females.

AVMA Journal:
https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/130401s.aspx

The study report:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0055937

Another major study (done on Hungarian Vizslas) has shown that, regardless of the age at the time of neutering, altered dogs had "significantly increased odds of developing mast cell cancer, lymphoma, all other cancers, all cancers combined, and fear of storms, compared with the odds for sexually intact dogs."

So food for thought and I don't believe it is as simple a choice as we once all believed it to be.
Click to expand...

The studies are in breeds heavily over represented in neoplasia already - something that should also be taken into account...

I'm not pro or against. I have 2 neutered and 2 entire dogs currently, however I do think fear of a GA isn't a particularly rational way to make the choice.
 
There are plenty of good reasons for and against castration but I have a sneaky suspicion that some women prefer not to be reminded of male appendages and find it enough of a justification to make their dogs undergo a major operation. (runs for cover!)

PS. I am a woman before anybody starts wondering.
 
Snowy Celandine said:
Can I ask why those of you who have not opted for castration as the first option wish your dogs to remain entire? Are you intending to breed from them in the future or is it a personal preference and, if so, on what is it based? I believe that many dogs in less affluent areas of the country are not castrated and I always assumed it was due either to cost or a wish to live vicariously through one's dog somehow, urgh!!
Click to expand...

Why would I castrate my dog unless there was a really good reason to?

In this particular dogs case there were behavioural quirks that could have been influenced by testosterone, but they could equally have been made dramatically worse by castrating and causing a sudden drop in testosterone. Chemical castration was a compromise. He had it once, we worked with him and he hasnt been a problem since.

It is absolutely nothing to do with cost. The implant costs the same as castration, and how on earth do you live vicariously through a dog?! I'm sure I must be misunderstanding what you mean there!

Oh, and in this house its my male OH who is pro neutering, and me who is very pro not neutering. He buys into the popular opinion that neutering solves all problems, whereas I know it generally makes them worse
 
planete said:
There are plenty of good reasons for and against castration but I have a sneaky suspicion that some women prefer not to be reminded of male appendages and find it enough of a justification to make their dogs undergo a major operation. (runs for cover!)

PS. I am a woman before anybody starts wondering.
Click to expand...

I have had both castrated and entire dogs, I am female and my decisions have nothing to do with dangle bits (or lack of) I just wanted to say castration is not 'a major operation'.
I am happy to leave dogs entire as long as there would be no health or behavioural benefits to castration.
As a dog trainer I do promote the idea of chemical castration for adolescent dogs that have behavioural issues that may be related to a peak in hormones. Reducing the hormones for a period of time whilst addressing the unwanted behaviours can result in a well behaved entire dog that once the injection wears of remains a well behaved/ well balanced dog for life.
OP I don't understand what benefit you see to chemically/ temporarily castrating a dog with no issues to start with?
 
Last edited:
Snowy Celandine said:
Really? I thought it was a fairly common interpretation of the situation :) I've even heard it expressed on television by the male owners of some of these entire dogs. They honestly seem to regard their dog as an extension of their own body in some weird, unfathomable and entirely grotesque way :o
Click to expand...

I think it is more anthromorphism. They would hate to have their knackers off and assume dogs think about it in the same way.
We might get a male pup next time and if so he will not be castrated. The only male we have ever had done was a border terrier who bit people, started fights, peed on things and was a vile little dog. We ended up with a vile little dog with all the same behaviours but no balls.
 
All boy bits present and correct lol.
Would only castrate if it was really causing a problem...healthwise or something that couldn't be corrected by training.

My last dog was done for health reasons and behavioural issues which were mostly corrected through training. When I first got involved in sport he was considered a novelty and I don't think I've come across a castrated dog actively competing since.
Even if my current dog was interested in girls, lol, he's kept in such a way as not to roam or cause nuisance.
 
FrankieCob said:
Why would I castrate my dog unless there was a really good reason to?

In this particular dogs case there were behavioural quirks that could have been influenced by testosterone, but they could equally have been made dramatically worse by castrating and causing a sudden drop in testosterone. Chemical castration was a compromise. He had it once, we worked with him and he hasnt been a problem since.

It is absolutely nothing to do with cost. The implant costs the same as castration, and how on earth do you live vicariously through a dog?! I'm sure I must be misunderstanding what you mean there!

Oh, and in this house its my male OH who is pro neutering, and me who is very pro not neutering. He buys into the popular opinion that neutering solves all problems, whereas I know it generally makes them worse
Click to expand...

Why would you castrate your dog? I've no idea, only you can answer that question :)

I'm sorry that you can't understand my post. I can write it out again but I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it so I apologise for that.

What problems are made worse by neutering? Does neutering also make female animals problems worse? Does this apply to geldings? Neutered tom cats? Can you elaborate please because now it's my turn to be puzzled?
 
Clodagh said:
I think it is more anthromorphism. They would hate to have their knackers off and assume dogs think about it in the same way.
We might get a male pup next time and if so he will not be castrated. The only male we have ever had done was a border terrier who bit people, started fights, peed on things and was a vile little dog. We ended up with a vile little dog with all the same behaviours but no balls.
Click to expand...

I agree that is is anthropomorphism :) I think it's amusing but some of the men on the television seemed to take their dogs balls as their, er, personal property and were determined to preserve them intact even in the face of evidence from the dog trainer woman that they needed lopping off. Maybe chemical castration would have been more acceptable to those men but it was never mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top