/an/ - Animals & Nature

I thought hysterectomy was the same as spaying? I'm surprised vasectomy isn't performed more often than outright castration though.

>>589

Vasectomies have a chance of not taking, it sometime takes a month for the 'bullets in the chamber' so to speak to be emptied, it's much more invasive and a longer procedure, it has more risks under the knife, and isn't nearly as practiced therefor there will be a lot more fuck ups. It also takes at least 4X longer to complete the procedure vs a normal neuter procedure, and it's also much cheaper.

It can be a possibility, but for the rich folk who already spoil their dogs. Unfortunately the pet overpopulation issue isn't caused by the 1% of rich white boys, it's mainly an issue from all the poor niggers who already can't spend money to vaccinate their dog let alone fix them.

>>590

>Vasectomies have a chance of not taking

This is why you sterilize both the males and the females.

>it sometime takes a month for the…

Same with neutered males; the same amount of sperm still exists in the "tubes" of a neutered male right after surgery, and the hormone levels take a few weeks to drop. So on this front, there's no disadvantage to the more humane procedures.

>isn't nearly as practiced therefor there will be a lot more fuck ups

>and it's also much cheaper.

This will change as vasectomy and partial-spay become more popular, and hopefully, over time, the normal procedures for sterilizing dogs.

>>592

The price will not. It is a more advanced surgery, that is all there is to it. A larger incision, more sewing, more delicate procedure, more tying, more time under anesthesia. It takes maybe 5 minutes to neuter a male dog. Vasectomies take at least 4X that time with vets who are familiar with the procedure. You have to be a lot more cautious with organs you intend to keep in working condition.

If you're looking for something that will sterilize an animal in a safe matter and be as less intrusive as possible, I'd suggest reading into chemical castration. Neutering via zinc is being done today on a small population. I don't think it's at the point where it can be widely used yet, as sterilization is only something like 80% effective and takes many months for it to work. But I think chemical castration, when perfected, will be the answer to just about all animal overpopulation, including pets smaller than cats and rabbits, like hamsters and guinea pigs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against vasectomy and tubal ligation as a whole. If people want to do that, all power to them. However, I don't believe it will be the answer to pet overpopulation, and therefore don't believe it should replace spaying and neutering. The main factors of pet overpopulation include money ('it's too expensive to fix my pet' from pet owners) and time ('we don't have enough time to fix all of these animals today' from vets and vet techs). Both of those factors would be worsened by vasectomy's and tubal ligation's longer, more tedious procedure.

If people wanted to keep their animal's hormones, I would much rather them have their animal sterile, anyways. It's not a good thing to advocate to everyone, though. Keep in mind, the average dog owner can not take care of a high energy dog, let alone a dog with hormones still intact.

Something to consider is that an intact dog, even if sterile, is still considered an intact dog on it's registration. That means higher registration fees, and higher fines if your dog were to get loose even though it is not able to reproduce.

>>642

Doesn't necessarily make that statement wrong. A sterile dog is still intact, because intact refers to the lack of surgery that physically detaches sexual organs, hence 'intact'. While some places have different rules regarding unfixed, fixed and sterile animals, a sterile animal is still considered intact medically even though unable to reproduce.