Is neutering your dog a responsible choice? It’s not that simple.
- Dogfulness
- Aug 21, 2020
- 3 min read
Neutering dogs shouldn’t be an automatic procedure. It’s not always the responsible choice. The truth about neutering is much more complicated.
Neutering has become the norm in the Western world. There are too many dogs, and homelessness is a huge issue. In the West, where dogs are primarily pets (unlike in parts of Asia and South America), shelters are overcrowded, and countless unwanted dogs live miserable lives.
Dogs are a species dependent on humans, and we feel responsible for controlling their population. At the same time, we struggle to accept puppy mortality. We want every puppy to live. But if they all survive, they can’t all reproduce—there simply wouldn’t be enough space in the world for so many dogs.
A similar issue applies to humans—we’ve overpopulated the planet. In the case of dogs, we’ve decided it’s our duty to reduce their numbers through mass neutering.
In Western culture, we often treat dogs like children—asexual beings. Their sexuality is awkward and unwanted.
Neutering is standard practice in shelters and adoption foundations, and most veterinarians advocate for it. People who choose not to neuter are often met with judgment. Those who do are labeled “responsible guardians.”
In the U.S., it’s standard to neuter puppies as young as a few months old (in some states, it’s required by law at four months). In Europe, dogs are usually neutered as soon as they reach maturity.
All of this is meant to reduce the number of unwanted dogs in the future.
Undoubtedly, widespread neutering has helped prevent homelessness. Shelters are less crowded, and dogs are euthanized or killed less often (I avoid the word “euthanasia,” which implies mercy killing requested by the individual being euthanized).
Beyond the homelessness issue, both sides throw around medical arguments. Neutering advocates cite reduced risks of mammary tumors, uterine infections, and longer lifespans. But there are also significant medical concerns against neutering: joint diseases, obesity, and increased cancer risk (though that might be due to increased longevity). It’s hard to say which side has more medical benefits. Neutering involves removing reproductive organs (commonly, and incorrectly, called “spaying” in females). But this isn’t just about stopping reproduction—it alters the dog’s hormonal balance, and that affects their emotions and psychology.
So behavior changes after neutering. This is often cited as a benefit—people hope for less aggression, for example. Many believe neutering is a cure-all for behavior problems. The issue is that behavior does change—but not always for the better.
Research shows that only about 25% of neutered males show reduced aggression afterward. The same goes for humping and urine marking. Studies on females suggest that neutering (especially before the first year) may actually increase aggression.
In fearful dogs, those already anxious around other dogs, neutering often increases fear levels—which can lead to aggression.
There are other ways to prevent overpopulation besides neutering. Non-surgical contraception options for females exist. For males, vasectomy and tubal ligation are possible. These don’t alter hormonal balance but are much less commonly performed than routine neutering.
Through mass neutering, we’re altering the species. Only registered purebred dogs are allowed to breed—however much and however often. Mixed-breed dogs can’t legally be bred for sale. This restriction often leads to inbreeding and genetic defects. Some argue that by excluding many healthy dogs from the gene pool, we’re disrupting the natural evolution of the species.
Neutering shouldn’t be a thoughtless default for every non-purebred dog. We need to think this through—seriously.
Comentarios