Getting my pooch castrated tomorrow.

My Mum and Dad are thinking of getting their Jack Russell done. He's an handsome little begger and think they should at least have some fun with the bitches first.

Plus couldn't he be a good money maker?
 
Not getting your dogs snipped can make them frustrated and aggressive when they're a few years old. If you're not breeding them, and especially if the dogs having the op in the first place, then just get it done.
 
Morbius said:
Dogs have a natural desire to procreate and stand a much higher chance of developing psychological issues if they don't get to mate. This desire increases with age and can result in aggression.

Neutering prevents this and also helps reduce the risk of certain cancers.
Click to expand...

My post is not directed to you as you didn't suggest neutering is the right thing to do, but generically I'd like to say the following:

Perhaps people who are unable to cater for their pets' procreating needs SHOULD NOT OWN ONE?

Further on, with regards to cancer prevention, I know that by removing the prostate you reduce the risk of prostate cancer in humans, perhaps we should have all males operated to remove their prostate so that we can save them from cancer? How about the female breasts? Great cancer reduction opportunities there too. We could remove their uterus' while we are at it if we don't plan for our daughters to procreate. Only if we want to breed them we should keep them, right??right???

Btw, I do not have any pets but I would like to have a dog someday. I am certain that a) I will not keep it indoors, if I can't have it outside with a lot of space to roam I won't get one, and b) I won't get it neutered, instead I'll make sure that I find bitches (or dogs if I get a bitch) to get them to procreate or whatever else they need to do.
 
kgi said:
Perhaps people who are unable to cater for their pets' procreating needs SHOULD NOT OWN ONE?
Click to expand...
So really that's most people, then? The vast majority of people that own dogs wouldn't be able to afford food, vaccinations and other medical expenses, time etc etc for breeding pets (dogs or otherwise). If people did keep the same numbers of pets but just didn't have them neutered, we'd probably have a significant rise in the number of animals being destroyed for lack of a good home. Great plan.
 
A.N.Other said:
So really that's most people, then? The vast majority of people that own dogs wouldn't be able to afford food, vaccinations and other medical expenses, time etc etc for breeding pets (dogs or otherwise). If people did keep the same numbers of pets but just didn't have them neutered, we'd probably have a significant rise in the number of animals being destroyed for lack of a good home. Great plan.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that if people didn't neuter them we would still have the same amount of people owning pets and thus having a population that multiplies intensely.

However, as you suggested, if only those that could breed them kept them that would by default mean small numbers of pets. Your logic is hence flawed.
 
kgi said:
You are assuming that if people didn't neuter them we would still have the same amount of people owning pets and thus having a population that multiplies intensely.

However, as you suggested, if only those that could breed them kept them that would by default mean small numbers of pets. Your logic is hence flawed.
Click to expand...
No, actually if you'd bothered to read what I said properly, you'd see that it wasn't flawed. I shall highlight the relevant word for you ;)
A.N.Other said:
So really that's most people, then? The vast majority of people that own dogs wouldn't be able to afford food, vaccinations and other medical expenses, time etc etc for breeding pets (dogs or otherwise). If people did keep the same numbers of pets but just didn't have them neutered, we'd probably have a significant rise in the number of animals being destroyed for lack of a good home. Great plan.
Click to expand...
The 'if' there handily implies that of course people would not be able to continue to own pets if this were the case.
 
A.N.Other said:
No, actually if you'd bothered to read what I said properly, you'd see that it wasn't flawed. I shall highlight the relevant word for you ;)
Click to expand...

Correct, I misread your post. :o

However, if only those that could breed them kept them, then you wouldn't have the same number so that is too a hypothetical argument.
 
A.N.Other said:
... and this wasn't hypothetical all along? :p
Click to expand...

Of course not!!! :eek::eek:

Well, it kind of follows that if only those that could breed them kept them then we would have very few. Suggesting that all who keep pets now would keep them and breed them goes against my argumental construction.

I shall not allow such vagaries!
 
Your dog will begin to self harm and lick his hair into a emo flip.

he wont have any testosterone in his body, he will be completely different, turn into a nancy boy and he other dog will bum him senseless.
 
As well as the already mentioned reasons for castration, another sound one is

"dogs don't practice birth control"

Given a few years we'd end up with packs of wild homeless uncared for dogs roaming the streets and eating any kid under 1 year old or 2ft high, any comatose drunk, or any obese person who couldn't run fast enough to escape them when they gave chase.

On a more serious note, expect him to bark in a higher pitch after the ops done :@
 
Morbius said:
Dogs have a natural desire to procreate and stand a much higher chance of developing psychological issues if they don't get to mate. This desire increases with age and can result in aggression.

Neutering prevents this and also helps reduce the risk of certain cancers.
Click to expand...

wordy said:
This. If you're not going to breed from your dog then it's fairer and healthier on your dog if you get him snipped.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "fairer", you've just taken away the dogs only purpose in life... chasing pussy!

How about getting him a mate? That would be fairer and easier on the conscience? Or just take him out for a booty call at the park or what not? At least he gets to do his duty rather than wither away.

I actually know nothing at all about castration but without any testicals no testosterone can be generated reducing the dogs desire to Chris Brown a bitch which in my books isn't very nice :(


EDIT: Don't ban me, pussy and bitch are both apt and not swear words when used in this context :p
 
Last edited:
I think it's fairer to have their bits chopped. It stops the urges (usually) which has got to be better than only being able to have a shag when your owner says it's ok? It must be quite frustrating to have all the working parts but not have the freedom to be able to use them when they wish.

Plus there is the aggression side already pointed out.
 
I understand your point, but I think it is a fundamental right to wanna get all up in anything and everything you can and by people pushing castration or intermitent breading upon their pets they are violating what could be classed as the one true meaning to life (obv. generalisation).

My personal opinions is that if you cant let your pet live it's life like nature intended then you shouldn't have it as a pet. If you can make your pets life better without making part of it worse (so there is no compromise) then sure, keep it as a pet, they'll thank you for it. But if not, you gotta ask yourself if you'd want to live the way you're letting the animal live.

I'm no animal rights crusader or nothing, perhaps just a simple "reproduction is a right" type of guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom