New Chemical Castration Approved by FDA

[Erica]

Company's FAQ about Zinc Neutering

Quote from a news article about it:

The newest in dog sterilization, Zeutering, is an FDA approved, non-surgical way to “neuter” your male dog, without the use of anesthesia, while leaving the testicles intact.

The chemical neutering process involves sedating your dog to calm him and injecting a solution of zinc-gluconate, L-Arginine, and water into each of the dog’s testicles. The dog is then marked with a small tattoo to indicate that he’s been neutered, and one month later, he is completely sterile. The process greatly reduces the costs of neutering and the time it takes to perform an operation.

There is little to no recovery time, no swelling, no irritation, no stitches.

The injection, made by Ark Sciences, called Esterilsol, is FDA approved for use on puppies between 3 and 10 months old. About 300 puppies have been zeutered to date, and the long-term effects of the procedure are still being researched.

(Source)

I've read through the FAQ and feel it will be interesting to see how these "zeutered" dogs grow. It does lower the testosterone level by 41-52% and is only approved for 3-10 month old puppies, so I'm wondering how it affects growth compared to surgical neutering or leaving the dog entire.

It is also estimated to cost 1/5 as much as traditional surgical neutering.

[Nettle]

I'd like to know more too. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

The biggest question in my mind is 'why bother?'

It does make you wonder at what point entire male dogs became monsters.

[minkee]

1 year to the day

[Sanna]

I second that minkee and then at precisely 13.5 months old they graduate to REALLY HORRIBLE monsters

[Nettle]

[PHOENIX]

Hi All,

I don't understand why some people (or companies or vets) are so invested in neutering / spaying dogs until they hit maturity.

It has already been established that early altering prevents the animal from properly maturing "between the ears," and for females, the point in their cycle at which they are altered can have dire life long consequences.

I have this argument regarding neutering dogs with several friends, who firmly believe that all male dogs should be neutered and it should be done before the dog lifts his leg for the first time becuase it "stops spraying." Anytime I try to discuss how such early neutering prevents the dog from growing up mentally, they don't want to listen.

Several months later they start complaining how their early neutered males act like "big dumb puppies" who are constantly being "corrected" by the older dogs because the puppies aren't "growing up," and teh adult dogs are tired of adult sized puppy minded dogs.

If that isn't proof enough that early neutering isn't a good idea, then I don't know what is.

But they refuse to see a causal link between the early neutering and the fact they have full grown dogs who still beleive they have "puppy license" to act like idiots, and then get harshly chastized by the other dogs for behaviors they cannot control.

How do we get through to such closed minded individuals?



Ringo's dad

[Nettle]

How do we get through to such closed minded individuals?

One person at a time, Phoenix. That's the only way.

And for people like me and a few others here who have kept dogs used at stud to speak up, and also all those with entire dogs never used at stud - and guess what? They are well-behaved amiable dogs that would never even consider inappropriate leg-lifting. Or running off, fighting etc ad inf. Never caused an unwanted litter. Unremarkable lovely dogs even though they are WHOLE


Unfortunately the prevailing idleness in humanity prefers mutilation over training, and while enlightened vets are coming on board on neutering at the right time, there are too many others who don't look any further than making a quick buck now before some other vet does later on. Then avoidable behaviour problems present, and the owners who trusted the 'experts' and thought they were doing the best for their dogs discover they weren't.


I can't tell you the times I've been flamed for daring to tell the truth about this but I'm still telling it because I know. If people like me stop speaking up, then all we have left is people spouting what other people have told them, with no basis in truth or experience at all.

[jacksdad]

there are too many others who don't look any further than making a quick buck now before some other vet does later on.

money and power in some shape or form always seem to be at the root of hot button issues.

I had started to respond with, ya money might be an driving factor for some, but look all the other factors that coming to play and realized all my points actually circled back to either money or power.

[ClareMarsh]

I get sick of hearing the word "fixed" too, when asked this in future I'm going to say "he's not broken" Seriously though, that's the implication isn't it? That an entire dog needs "fixing"

[jacksdad]

thinking a little more on this...first question that jumps to mind is.... how is this better than a vasectomy?

on the surface, it seems better than traditional neutering, and if I understand right retains about %50 hormone production. But you are still putting the dog "under". So that would seem to eliminate not having to put a dog under anesthetic as a criteria .

If your just injecting something into the dog, that does eliminate incisions, stitches, trauma from surgery, so that seems a plus. But you are injecting something without knowing long term effect. so that is a negative.

so since we are still putting a dog under, why not the vasectomy? seems over all safer to me...but I freely admit there could be factors I have yet to learn about with vasectomies and dogs.

[gwd]

The biggest question in my mind is 'why bother?'

well, I know that show dog breeders often want their pet quality puppies altered because they have worked long and hard to establish their kennel name and don't want dogs bred that don't meet their standards (which is why they were deemed pets). many breeders struggle with the dilemma of requiring spays and neuters because they know that it's best for the dog to reach maturity before being altered (or believe that it's healthier for dogs to be entire their whole lives)........but they want to make certain that no puppies ever result from a pet puppy.

this would give them options.........guaranteed birth control but the health benefits of testosterone.

It does make you wonder at what point entire male dogs became monsters.

see, here is where it becomes an issue for vets. they've been touting the benefits of neutering, not just for sterilization, but to remove the evil testosterone from the planet! this option requires them to backtrack and recognize the health benefits of a normal endocrine system

[Nettle]

Thanks gwd, I hadn't thought of the not breeding on from non-show-quality dogs option. Over here they just refuse to hand the papers over plus I think there is some kind of endorsement they can lodge with the KC so any bred-ons can't be registered.

[minkee]

I'd have to dig out the papers, but I'm pretty sure that whatever I have from the KC is in a 'cannot be bred from' category. Unless changed by the breeder. So you are correct, if I used B as a stud then his puppies would be 'illegitimate' I suppose I would think that this wouldn't stop some owners, especially any that can match up with a poodle of some kind. Ibipoo anyone?! Poodenco??

[rnor1120]

Ibipoo anyone?! Poodenco??

BITE. YOUR. TONGUE.