Science doesn’t change with one or even 10 studies; it will take many replications of this study, before we can rule out any type of other variable that could cause this effect. Also, this study was a survey, based on a questionnaire, not my favorite type of study, there is so much room for human error. I’m not sure if it was random or not, they did use a lot of dogs, 10,839 which if there were any differences at all between the groups it would show as statistically significant. The summary doesn’t say if the intact females who were shown to be less aggressive, had ever giving birth, which would be an important variable. I just think there are so many variables, such as the way these dogs were raised. We all know that the way you treat a dog can make it more aggressive. To be valid, in my opinion, the dogs should have been treated the same their whole lives.
I hope these studies don't change the notion that neutering is the best thing we can do for not just our dogs, but all dogs in this country. While I’m not in favor of early age neutering, I’m afraid people will just stop neutering all together. Most people don’t have much of a science background and can be easily swayed. All you have to do is look at other countries where neutering isn't common and see the abundance of starving dogs and you’ll really know what an aggressive dog is. We already are killing millions of dogs each year. One unaltered female dog and her offspring can produce 67,000 puppies in only six years. Every pet owner thinks that they are responsible, but the truth is too many aren't. Studies like this should be viewed with caution until more is known. |