How many of you guys have your husky sprayed or neutered?

Do you guys see a huge difference between getting it done and not?

Something just feels wrong getting my little kiba fixed.

Wrong how? Why does it seem wrong?

i got blu neutered at about 10 months... was debateing on doing it but he was getting very "bossy" with me, so got him fixed... he has mellowed out quite a bit. still very energetic but he doesnt try and dictate where we are going anymore... just goes with the flow of life.

but as a general rule im a firm believer in getting your pets fixed once they are of the proper age. then again thats just me, like i said it made my blu alot more mellow and manageable... keep in mind that not every dog is the same and one persons expirence may widely differ from anothers.

seattlesibe wrote:

Wrong how? Why does it seem wrong?

Seriously? LoL!

You are literraly cutting your dog's balls off. It's wrong on so many levels.

I agree it's done for the greater good. My boy is neutered.

But still it's no different than doing it to a human. Side effects are the same. I can totally understand why people would have second thoughts.

I had no choice with Loki since he was from rescue that pulls puppies from high kill shelters. He is really tall though. My lab that got fixed at 6 months is also really tall. Some have posted this can be from getting fixed too early. If I had a choice I would probably wait until after a females first heat or a male reaches 1-2.

I was serious, yes. I am genuinely curious as to why it is thought of as wrong, and for what reasons.

It's not the same as ,hypothetically, neutering a human. Dogs are domesticated animals that we essentially own as property and altering their way of life and their way of being is necessary and justified if we continue to own them.

seattlesibe wrote:

I was serious, yes. I am genuinely curious as to why it is thought of as wrong, and for what reasons.

It's not the same as ,hypothetically, neutering a human.  Dogs are domesticated animals that we essentially own as property and altering their way of life and their way of being is necessary and justified if  we continue to own them.

We see things differently. I think it's kind of cold to say that you think of your dog as a ''domesticated animal that you own as property''. If we were talking about a cow that you were going to eat in a couple years anyway I could see your point. But...

I see my dog as family, as a brother. He trusts me and I trust him. He's there for me when I need him. And when he needs me, I'm there. There is a bond between us that we share with no one. I could never think of him in the way you described.

I found my dog and he was already neutered. But If I had to do it it would have felt like asking and paying someone to cut off my bro's balls.

Hope you see why some people don't really want to do it.

I totally get your point. Don't get me wrong.

I'm not talking about the emotional component of owning a dog. I don't think of my dog as a domesticated piece of property, I think of him as Link the Siberian Husky who is my buddy and my dependent.

But the fact remains that they are domesticated animals that we own as property. That is undeniable and non-controversial, albeit perhaps a rather cold or non-emotional way of stating it.

This is the nature of our relationship to them at the basic, fundamental level and in light of this my point is that altering their way of being and their life is justified and necessary. Look no further than at your dog's leash or in his food bowl.

What i do concede is that I don't humanize my dog like you do, and thus it seems we have differing ways of contextualizimg a neutering or spaying.

Cheers..

Personally, I see spaying/nuetering as being less cruel than keeping them intact without being responsibly bred. If the dog is not going to be responsibly bred, it really kind of wrong to keep them intact after they're done growing.

Intact males have to deal with the stress of not getting any sex, going insane as the human puts up barriers to keep them from that goal. I have know intact males to bash through windows and chew through walls in order to get at a female in heat, some of them causing severe injuries to themselves. Without that sexual desire, you eliminate that stress and allow for them to live a more comfortable life.

Intact females have to deal with heats and unless they get pregnant once in a while, there is a high risk of getting pyometra and their body has to deal with the constant strain of cycling. I don't know about the rest of the ladies here, but I really hate having to deal with my cycles and can't wait to get "spayed" so that I don't have to deal with it any more (but that will have to wait until after I have a kid or two).

Thank you Beth. I knew that post was coming.

So there's an argument using compassion as a reason to in fact spay/neuter our dogs.

Now this is a real dilemma.

Part of the ethical responsibility of owning an animal and domesticating them is choosing what you consider to be the best life possible for them, and that includes comfort and ease of living.

Altering them is implied. A breed is an alteration. A leash is an alteration.

I find it genuinely fascinating to learn where and how some people draw the line of right and wrong as to how they alter their dogs. It's a wonderful topic of ethics.

I feel like the "justified and necessary" statement is strictly limited to diet, medical, and housing conditions. It certainly isn't necessary to have your dog fixed or to have them on-leash outside. "Justified and convenient" would be a little more like it in this specific case. It's not a black and white matter as well and shouldn't be treated as such.

Yeah, no. Don't want to get involved in a debate. >.<

@KibaBear: Most people I know neuter or spay their pets; personally I signed a contract saying that I would get my dog fixed before 18 months. Although at the same time there are some health risks to getting your dog fixed. If I were you I would evaluate your current position in life. Things like where you live, how many dogs are in your area, and behavioral problems that your dog might develop are all things that could impact your decision. I would also research extensively all the pros and cons that are involved with neutering your pet. There isn't really a clear cut answer to this question and I really do believe that it's up to the individual to decide what they can and cannot handle. I personally don't see it as cruel to have them either intact or fixed, I actually find it more immature to try and force your personal views of dog ownership on others. (I'm not implying that anyone here is doing that btw, because no one is.)

Also remember that keeping your dog intact doesn't make you an irresponsible owner, as long as you're aware of all the pros/cons and responsibilities involved. So yeah definitely do your research, and good luck!

(Oh yeah, as a disclaimer feel free to disregard this post if you want. I'm not really an expert in dog ownership so take the things I say with a grain of salt please. ^_^ )

Neutering and spaying is always the responsible thing to do when you are not planning to breed (and only experienced people should be breeding anyways). I remember a long time ago someone posted a link to what happens hormonally after a neuter or spay. Usually if it is done before they are fully grown or for females after their first heat. I have read and told by my breeder that dogs usually do get larger than normal, usually. If I remember correctly, fixing the animal at early ages causes the animals hormones responsible for regulating growth to "shut off" so there is a chance they can grow larger. It is more of a problem for the larger breed of dogs that are more prone to hip dysplasia, etc. Other than that, it is a psychological matter for you the owner, of getting over the fact your male dog won't have his balls. Doubt a dog would even know.

Thank you Aidan for bringing attention to a misreading of my posts.....not that you're debating or acknowledging me.

I've not used 'alter' as synonymous with spay/neuter at all here, so I've not claimed that spaying/neutering is necessary and justified. I'm not a Must Spay/Neuter person at all and in fact I respect people who don't spay/neuter and can manage the consequences of not doing so.

I argued that altering (changing) our dogs' behavior and way of being is necessary and justified because we own them as domesticated animals. This was my argument against thinking of our dogs as humans and saying we shouldn't neuter them because that would be wrong in light of our emotional connections to them.

Thank you for bringing that up (even though you didn't because you weren't engaging me). I realized that may have been confusing.

Luci is spayed. I love her and all, but the world does NOT need more Luci's in it.

lol well thank you all for responding so quickly. I read every message and i appreciate everyones input. I see neutered as wrong "sorta" just on the pure fact that hes meant to do something with it or he wouldnt have it. I completely understand that only experienced breeders should breed and keep them intact but he has a good blood line. Im like, "why waste that." lol. Kiba is a spark plug but i feel thats what makes his personality , exactly what it is. And cutting his balls to tone him down is taking a piece of that away. Its alittle bit of a struggle. ill probably end up doing it, but not liking it.

But i do plan on researching before my decision. Hes only 3 months now so i have quite some time to see how he turns out.

So do you feel like you have a duty to honor his nature as a male that you couldn't do if you neutered him? Do you think that his testicles are influencing his behavior and personality now at his current age?

I noticed you said he has a good bloodline. Who is he out of?

Not about what i could or couldnt do whether hes neutered or not. Just as a gut feeling feels alittle wrong. You cant try and make logical sense out of emotions all the time. I have a feeling you do that. lol. I think everything about the pup exactly how he is is influences how he behaves. That includes testicles. Hes a complete dog now.Might feel incomplete later on.

Im sorry poor choice of words. Not bloodline as in a high/royal family. At least not that i know of haha. But just pure DNA. Such a good looking dog and good attributes. Would want to pass it down. Just the newbie owner speaking on these topics ha.Thank you guys for putting up with me

Hey bud, I'll give you a tip, ummm... how to say... probably 90% of people here get a bit upset with people suggesting, or wanting to breed a 'un-proven' dog... i.e. because (if I am wrong I apologize) it sound's as though you have got an un-papered husky... so therefore you can't know what hidden bad genes there could be in his blood, to keep it simple.

Have a gander at this thread:

https://www.itsahuskything.com/t1043-so-you-want-to-be-a-breeder

That will give you insight to how the majority feel about breeding without knowing genetics etc.

While I agree that going on a "gut feeling" can sometimes yield positive results, in this case it's best for all involved that you leave breeding to the ethical professionals. You don't seem to be too sure of your dog's lineage; therefore you have no idea what kind of health issues may be hidden in his DNA. Ideally, you would know at least the last three generations of your dog's lineage and that all of those dogs would have passed hip and eye health tests and sometimes temperament tests. Ideally, some of the dogs in that pedigree would have champion titles, either in the show ring or in harness.

The consequences for going on a gut feeling and leaving a dog like this intact can affect not only you and your dog but someone else's dog, heaven forbid an unintended pregnancy results. It can also affect the offspring, as they could now also have those potential genetic health defects hidden in their DNA that you aren't absolutely certain don't exist in your dog (or in the mother, for that matter).

I could go on, and most of this is better explained in the thread Carissa referenced (which I also highly recommend you read through), so I'll just say the bottom line is that if your dog isn't health tested and you are unsure of at least the last three generations of his lineage, you have no idea what his DNA holds and therefore he is unfit to be bred. Breeding should be for the betterment of the breed in terms of temperament, drive and focus in the work the breed has historically been bred to do, not just because the dog "looks" good to the eye. I'm sure a lot of us would say the same about our dogs, but we're not about to take on the heavy responsibility of producing offspring from them.

That said, it is ultimately your decision whether to keep your dog intact or to neuter. Just know the risks and responsibilities that come with leaving your dog intact, if that's what you choose.

Good thread. Does make alot of sense. This is why i joined this forum lol. To learn and get advice and opinions. So like i said ill probably get it done when hes older, even tho ill dislike doing it haha. But i really appreciate everyones input. Yall the best!!!

Btw i would love to see a husky with a solid or known bloodline. If there are physical characteristics at least that i can see. Anyone of you guys have one?

This thread looks at the appearance of the dog: https://www.itsahuskything.com/t7278p440-conformation-a-realistic-look-at-sibes-and-their-faults#186525