wildewillie89

RIP Sam

MIL built an outdoor kitchen and storage area where we live. If she had the means to spend money like it was nothing to build unnecessary houses then I have no doubt she would. She already has everything she needs so no expectations from me (other than keeping her grandchildren healthy). Although, she really appreciates getting flowers on her birthday. 

Probably many reasons people do it. Whether brownie points, relationship based on finances, no backbone to say no or purely it just coming down to a sense of family. Some families will help each other out more than others. When my mother and father divorced, her family (other than two cousins) were too scared to even bring up the subject so just completely ignored my siblings and I. After about 6 months they realised what they did was wrong and tried to reach out. I am not all that emotional, but I certainly feel more of a sense of family with my step-mother/family and mother-in-law/family than my real mother/family. Maybe others are the same so will do it for those reasons. 

 

PCR will show what species of Babesia has infected the dog and it is a more sensitive test, the other tests do not. It is the best diagnosing tool - that is why I was confused about the results you posted as the vets should have sent off the blood at the initial diagnosis. When my in-laws dog tested positive to Ehrlicihia the vet also sent off blood to test for Babesia (possibly coinfection). Depending on the species will depend on the best course of treatment. 

In many dogs, treatment will not eliminate the infection. The dog may either become sub-clinically infected or a carrier (no symptoms). If sub-clinically infected and the dogs picks up another infection or is stressed then disease may relapse (symptoms). 

100% get PCR tests done before taking out his spleen. I am amazed if the vets knew he had been diagnosed for this, and hadn't seen any PCR results,  recommend to remove the spleen (as ultrasounds have always been clear of growths, cancers etc). He really, really needs his spleen if Babesia is endemic in your area. There was a study done in Mahasarakham in 2015 of 79 street dogs. 21.5% tested positive to Ehrlichia, 10.1% to Hepatozoon, 6.3% to Babesia and 2.5% coinfection (Ehr/Bab)...so there are a lot of diseases out and about. 
 

I am very close to my dad and after his divorce he would come out with my friends and I to get his mind off it, so he was seen as a father figure (my friends call him Dad). He has since re married. My Thai friends living in Australia used to not only bring food or help cook when we met up with my parents but also wash up after. Even though I live in Thailand now, 3 or 4 of them still go and visit my father/step mother regularly for dinner.

This girl really should at least be helping around the house more. Sometimes people are shy and just need a bit of a budge, so maybe invite her to help you do something. Then at least you have shown in front of your son you have tried for her. 

But, yes, you will get lazy people in every culture. I had a friend who married a guy from Venezuela. He never got a job, never helped around the house (just played computer games), never even went to the free English classes that he was offered. She loved him and worked/paid for everything, her father and brother not so much. Unfortunately, you cannot do much. Just be there when/if he finally wakes up. 

As Sappersrest said it needs to be PCR - actually two PCR tests after treatment for Babesia. 

I got confused as in the blood tests you have reported on here, I don't recall any clear mention of a Babesia test. Just CBC and SNAP results.  

It is not uncommon for dogs that survive and get treated to continue to be infected sub-clinically. So relapse is common. 

But if had the two PCRs then hopefully all good :). Must have misread the posts. 

I cant believe municipalities having a competition to minimalise garbage is so hard to believe. The Prime Minister and Anupong (Interior MInister) even attended the awards ceremony. The conferences leading up to the competition obviously looked at criteria, and ideas of how things would be achieved. Criteria focused on reduced weight (monthly tonnage), and innovative ideas with the push for limiting municipality bins. 

For example, in the municipality where my work is there are obviously many villages. The municipality chose one village to remove all bins from government buildings and public bins from streets. The direction they want to head in is to have a set time each village meets to dispose of their rubbish in the truck (Taiwan I think do a similar system, however, I am sure we are all aware of Thai discipline). 

Another municipality put in recycle bins (inside the property) made out of pvc piping and netting for households. 

A close friend of ours is in charge of a municipality not too far from us (she scored second in the country in the competition). She put in a bank system where the villages meet twice a month with all their garbage they can sell (recyclables etc). She made contact with an insurance company. The municipality sell the garbage and pay into life insurance for that villager over the year. 

All municipalities discussed with houses, private shops and companies about turning food into compost and fertilizer and obviously recycling/ways to limit garbage. The idea is to eventually only have the odd hazard bin available to the public in the long term.

So yes, there is a competition for every province (attended by the PM and Minister - not just local). There are also competitions set by other ministries. But my focus has always been on municipalities and the Interior Ministry (you brought up all the other variables with your Google searching and surface knowledge). 

The Interior Ministry is sick of subsidising so much waste disposal. Each municipality must pay to dispose of their waste (as many do not have landfills), the household fee is not enough so the Ministry pays it. That is why garbage has been the focus for all municipalities over the last couple years. 

I will not bother reading the response, as it will just be a reply of 'nonsense', 'you're misinformed'. 
 

1 hour ago, meatboy said:

WW89 I have asked you to explain where are the test results for RICKETTSIA.? you now I will find it for myself so please can you explain.

my findings for rickettsia are as follows,another name is EHRLICHIOSIS which has been found again,ehrlichia canis which is carried by the brown dog tick[if eaten] this attacks the neutrophils in the WHITE BLOOD CELLS.and also it attacks the lymphocyts as both of these are unaffected and I can go back to 2015.i wonder why ehrlichia keeps popping up.so what are the other ones that need to be re-tested for please .and what test is it.

Rickettsia infections - the SNAP test will pick these up. I think it was a issue of miscommunication. 

I don't think you have ever posted any Babesia test results. You just said the dog has had Babesia diagnosis before. Babesia needs 2-3 re-tests (testing at 60 and 90 days after treatment). Did he get them, if he did then obviously I must not have seen you mention it. If just going off the fact he was treated for it, then that isn't full proof as Babesia doesn't always respond to treatment. *Also it is suggested that treatment with imizol makes the dogs more susceptible to reinfection as the antibodies cant do their job. So if he keeps getting infected, and Babesia is obviously around your area, then logic probably dictates that re-testing should occur. 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12809752

He can be checked and rechecked every night, but the fact of the matter is he is continually testing positive to tick diseases, and that is most probably due to that he has been on spot on treatment, rather than Bravecto. It isn't difficult for dogs to pick up ticks. When I walk my dogs I see them crawling along the ground sometimes. Many members homes have them purely from a street dog laying at their gate entrance. That is why those who use Bravecto don't generally have issues, and those that don't do. Purely a timing thing, Bravecto almost always kills ticks before they transmit disease, the neck spot on does not. 

Thought the common theme of this forum was people moved to Thailand to get away from their 'nanny state'. 

2 hours ago, meatboy said:

this parasite infections seem to have gone on and off for over 3yrs.dont ask me about vets [7diff ones] who have ripped us off.we have not found a tick on him for 26months.the house is tick free,the garden is treated every yr.but for some reasons they keep returning after months and months of treatment.what we have  used is control line drop on the neck which we to work never a tick.he has had 4 imizol treatments.must be over 500doxy besides enough others to sink a ship.as for babesia only once DEC 2017 then it disappeared after the imizol.the previous imizol treatments were to get rid of hepatoozon this was the first blood test he had jan.2015.since then its seems to have been when they get rid of one thing they [vets] make sure they will find something else to feed their pockets.i can tell you stories which are hard to believe but I can tell you THEY ARE NOT.when vets see falang with a big house the pound signs are in their eye.s.

its over 35yrs.since I have been with wife and we are starting to HATE every thing about Thailand.but being 73yrs.old

I have made my bed SO LAY IN IT. if our boy gets through all this we will consult the doctor at chula.about wether he can go on bravecto.

meatboy.

Bravecto now is very available in Thailand. It is the one drug vets know works (with demodectic mange also), so there is not much chance of vets using you as an ATM if the dog is on it. The spot on along the neck is useless for many dogs for some reason here. The in-laws Retriever has ticks all over her with it. Some dogs it works for, but I have seen many it doesn't to the level needed. Also it takes too long to kill ticks (48 hours), so diseases can be transmitted before the tick dies (which would explain why he gets diseased but you haven't found ticks). Bravecto kills the ticks before they get a chance to transmit the disease (12 hours), so it is virtually impossible as ticks take up to 24 hours to transmit disease (vets know this). Yes, it is a strong drug, but it is approved and necessary for many, as from memory, up to 24% of dogs are infected in some areas of the country. The side effects are a lot less common than the rate your boy is picking up diseases. 

I would ask the vets to re-test for Babesia, and every other tick disease they are capable of testing. Standard clinic tests only show the Rickettsia infections. So if they haven't re-tested for those other problems he has been diagnosed for in the past then it is pretty much a losing battle finding out why his bloods are always all over the place. If can get clear testing on everything and use Bravecto, then you have a good place for the vets to start. It may just lead to the dog naturally having slight anemia that is exacerbated by tick diseases that it can be managed when not infected. Or immune related caused by parasites that can be managed with medication without taking the spleen out. 

It is tough for vets as obviously the dog cannot communicate the exact symptoms and symptoms we can see are generally the same for many issues. So it is important for us owners to make sure we can eliminate a lot of things by the way the dog lives so the vets have more of a chance. 

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Obviously a different part of LOS than the village I lived in. Never saw a cow on the road and there were no buffalo. They locked their dogs up at night too.

Sounds a nice village. I think cow time is an actual law from memory. Where locals are allowed to walk their cows and buffalo on the roads legally at certain times of the day. But yeah, definitely depends on location. Where we are is technically still considered Meuang, but just far enough out to get countryside - so includes cow time.

36 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

I think you are misinformed...how do they compete?

How does the photo illustrate either competition or bins

What point are you trying to make.

I've stated that the waste disposal system is unsatisfactory and allows large dog populations to thrive....you come back with nonsense about competition and no bins.

I'm aware of the responsibility hierarchy for domesticrefuse collectionandnoneofit fits into comments which appear to be based on a misunderstanding of what goes on.

I also don't understand how you think this connects to the dog population...I have stated how I consider it relevant in respect of the accepted assertion that without reducing the food supply you can never reduce the dog population

http://www.thaigov.go.th/news/contents/details/1779

(On a side note, where does your information come from?)

The last paragraph discusses a competition. In terms of the relevant official, they get government awards which help lead to cross department jobs, but also selected by their municipality committee to receive multiple pay rises over the year. In terms of the municipality, if win then they have continual study trips from municipalities around the country. Which leads to resorts, hotels, restaurants being used, increase in economy, re-election of Mayor. Government implemented the competition in an attempt to drive the policy. 

What has it got to do with the dog population? Garbage will continue to be openly available to dogs. The very thing that you apparently are an expert on as to what will solve the dog problem. The direction the ministry wants to go is to limit garbage, and the way they want to do it is to limit bins (leaving garbage open to dogs) - as the photo demonstrated. Your very solution was based on the need for bins. So if the country has decided it doesn't want to go down that path, then the solution is redundant. So a new solution must be thought of to control the dog population. 

I thought that was the point of a discussion. Finding out what ways will work, what ways will not work, and what ways are troubled by other variables (social, politics, religion, etc). From memory you criticised other potential ways to fix the problem, why do you go all hissy when someone says your way will not work?

If the ultrasound came back good (no cancers etc), then I would definitely re-assess if it has to be removed. Just purely due to how often he gets tick borne diseases. Probably slightly enlarged due to the Ehrlichia. 

From memory he has or has had Babesia and seems to have Ehrlichia every time you go back. Did they do another test for Babesia? Babesia needs 2-3 tests after treatment to make sure treatment works (as it is hard to get rid of). Not to mention if he keeps getting tick diseases, then obviously has chance of co-infections. Could explain a lot re anemia or even potential immune related anemia issues triggered by the Babesia. A lot of info out their relating to splenectomised dogs and Babesia, some places say dogs who have had their spleen removed and are suspected of having Babesia should be considered emergency patients so I would do it as a very last/no other choice resort. 

Have they ever discussed potential immune related issues (such as IMHA - quite common type of anemia)? The vets will find that difficult to diagnose probably as they are always getting positive results for tick diseases, but it is something that can be caused by blood parasites. Splenectomy may help patients of this, but again, a risk re Babesia. 

Was he on the Bravecto? Why picking up the Ehrlichia still? 

2 hours ago, meatboy said:

hi WW. I will try and post what I can read,quite a lot are measured different to most I can read.

RBC.[x10] divide 6,range5.2-8.6     result 2.82.

hemoglobin           range 12.4-19.1.result 8.

hemocrite           range 29.8.-57.5  result 23.

mcv.                   range 62.7-72       result81.5.

mch.                   range 22.2-25.4   result 28.5.

mchc.                 range 34-36.6      result  34.9.

wbc.                    range  5.4-15.3    result 11.39.

platelet [x10] divde 3  range 160-525 result 19.

neutrophils        range 51-84       result 75.7.

lymphocytes     range 8-38         result 13.8.

monocytes        range  1-9          result 7.6.

calcium              range 9.6-11.6   result 9.1.

alt [sgpt]            range 4-91         result 58.

cholesterol       range 146-156   result  152

creatinine         range 0.6-1.4     result  1.4.

PROTEIN         RANGE 5.8-7.9   RESULT 4..2

ALBUMIN        RANGE 2.6-4      RESULT 1.5

what the doctor was concerned about was the platelet count,score last test 98,000 so I don't know how it is worked out.

the above 2 after looking at the last 6 blood test how they could be missed out as these are very important.

as ehrichia had showed up again the doctor said first that had to go.

also SAM had been given too much doxy over 50mg.a day for over 4months.

now for the ultra sound NO GROUTH OR CANCER,LIVER A LITTLE BIT BIG AND INFLAMED.

THE BILE DUCT WAS A LITTLE BIT CLOUDY WITH A SMALL BLOCKAGE.

the past 4 days he has been in bkk.he thought he was on holliday,very alert.

back on the 5th.march.

So what was their opinion on removing the spleen? 

1 hour ago, Airbagwill said:

What is this fierce competition of which you speak and please explain what bins were "removed" and why.

You didn't know municipalities compete re garbage? You are talking a lot about garbage, but so far none of it is actually relevant to Thailand - all relevant to other countries. So I wonder what you are trying to achieve. A hypothetical that is not in line with the direction the ministry has stated it wants to go in? Good luck on that one.  

I have already explained, and even posted a photo of an example of it. Go and speak to your local municipality about the direction the ministry wants to go in as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about (re Thailand). It would explain the 'nonsense' comment, and then not being able to explain why it was nonsense and then also offering incredibly vague comments relevant to other countries (not Thailand). 

Probably depends a lot on where people live as to how concerning it is for them. I live in a village and I have never stepped in dog shit as usually the dogs do it in the grass (away from cars/people's walk ways). Not to mention it decomposes quicker than back home as the food Thai dogs consume rarely includes actual meat, and also due to the warm climate. 

Buffalo and cow shit is all over the roads as they don't move for cars and causes already non-skilled drivers to swerve at high speeds. 

One of the areas where the bins used to be at my workplace. The garbage bags had just been picked up by the municipality (twice a week), the rest of the time bags obviously have to be left there - field day for street dogs. Heavy reliance on the maintenance guy to sort through as best he can. 

From memory, I think it was an American who had a phd relating to garbage who did his thesis on a municipality in the US, which had no bins. Thailand paid him to come and give a lecture. The idea was if no bins then less rubbish, as the ministry was sick of subsidizing so much rubbish disposal. Now that would have worked if the country also outsourced companies to fine people littering, dumping or even if the country's municipalities had fining powers. Thailand do not have either of these for the most part. If someone litters/dumps, then you must go to the police with evidence, or if someone dumps/burns the official must get the elected Mayor to sign it off and ask the police to act on the fine.

So in Thailand it was obviously going to be a disaster. Dogs are left to eat rubbish due to no bins and other Mayors were never going to go around fining every man and his dog for burning off rubbish due to no bins (political suicide) - which is why many Mayors didn't follow this idea and kept bins and didn't increase fees. But the point is the direction the government wants to go is very far from dog proof so new ideas need to be thought of to tackle the dog issue. 

On the incinerator, it is probably also due to the fierce competition the ministry sets between municipalities. They are awarded for the least amount of garbage tonnage they can achieve. Numbers are naturally not accurate because of this. So there could be enough rubbish around the place to warrant a few more, but the numbers will never show this in many provinces.  

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I think a few provinces around us looked into getting one of those incinerators (that create energy) and then realised the amount of rubbish needed wasn't possible. So landfill remained the better option. 

 

Not trying to attack you, but that is rubbish ( sorry ). If those provincial authorities can't work together to combine the rubbish so they can use an incinerator that is down to their lack of .....................

Landfill is absolutely the worst way of disposing of mankind's garbage. Recycling and composting the best ( composting also creates useable fuel [ gas ]) If they can't do the best, at least incinerate and make electricity.

The problem comes to run them requires significant amounts of garbage, so many are turned off. Norway and Sweden have them and have to have rubbish imported to keep them going. I am not sure how much rubbish you think provinces make, but it was decided it wasn't enough. I can PM you the notes/discussion this weekend probably, but they would be in Thai so need to be translated. 

I completely agree with the last part. The municipalities have worked hard on trying to recycle and compost, but they can only work within their means. A cultural shift is required which would probably have to start with the younger generation.

*

An environmentalist's dream, you might have thought. Not necessarily, cautions the chair of Friends of the Earth Norway, Lars Haltbrekken.

"The overall goal from an environmental perspective should be to reduce the amount of waste, reuse what we can reuse, recycle, and then the fourth option is to burn it and use the energy.

"We have created such an overcapacity in these power plants in Norway and Sweden. We have made ourselves dependent on producing more and more garbage."

2 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Mostly nonsense - you have tried to dichotomise rubbish disposal and made assumptions about how the whole thing should b financed.

which "ministry: are you talking about and what kind of bins?

As for your negative views on costing they are mostly ill-founded......firstly if the government can afford roads railways utilities they can have a national policy.

disposing of garbage does not specifically require an incinerator or a specific amount and if the dog problem was nationalise then economies of scale would be available.

Whatever way the rubbish is disposed of it CAN be done it ways that it is inaccessible to dogs and does not get dispersed from within the confines of where it is put......every European country has achieved that. It doesn't require a revolutionary method of garbage collection it just requires that it is done properly

To see the problem of dogs village by village is a blinkered approach, it needs a national change. If one region doesn't cooperate then the next region will be invaded by their dogs and all their efforts will have been wasted.

 

Environmentally friendly waste disposal systems are not necessarily expensive either as they produce usable bi-products such as energy or even recycled materials and fertilisers.

 

Ministry of Interior deal with local governments. The budget is so stretched the ministry's only solution was to increase the household fee by 7 times. If the budget is as big as you think, then why have they been forced to go down this path? 

I was under the impression these systems changed the attitude, that some places now have the mindset that they have to create rubbish just to keep the system going. I think the opponents of the incinerator system in Norway discussed this idea. I personally like it if it can bring in energy, however, Thai will need to have rubbish imported to run it. This could make them money, however, you can bet your life that process will not be dog proof. If not an incinerator, then what are the alternatives? You failed to answer this. As far as I know it is mostly landfills and incinerators that are discussed at the conferences. We are kidding ourselves if we think all landfills will ever be dog proof across the country.  

Regions are in competition in Thailand, you do realise this? Even municipalities within each province are in competition. The figures of how many tonnes of rubbish are collected are fixed because of this. Some residents in some provinces even travel to dump their rubbish to get lower weights further adding to the problem. To fix a problem you must look at it from the actual country's way of looking at it and go from there, not from extremely developed ways that Thai people will turn off to as soon as you open your mouth. 

6 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

You assume that garbage disposal will be a direct tax/fee on householders.

What is needed is a disposal system that he's from source to dump

Producers whether domestic or commercial need to have suitable bins and collection, but also the local authorities need to ensure that after regular collection the garbage is placed in dumps that are environmentally friendly and don't encourage scavenging by dogs and other animals.

This is standards any clean city around the world.

It also has financial benefits in both cleanliness and health.

How they found this is up to the city itself....after the initial investment the running costs are no more than anything they have now.

It really isn't a matter of funds so much as a matter of attitude. Once in place the benefits to locals business health and tourism will pay for it.

For starters, the direction the ministry wants to now go is away from bins. My workplace have removed all their bins already as the municipality decided to to go with the government. Where I live decided to go against what the government wanted and kept their bins (every municipality had the choice).

The environmentally friendly ways are expensive and need more rubbish than provinces actually have. I think a few provinces around us looked into getting one of those incinerators (that create energy) and then realised the amount of rubbish needed wasn't possible. So landfill remained the better option. 

Where is the money coming from for these initial investments, and what are the actual investments that are dog proof? Yes, the bigger municipalities own things like hotels etc, however the smaller municipalities still need to pay those big municipalities to use their garbage disposal system. Like I said, even now if a municipality charged 7x what they currently do it doesn't even break even for even a dog friendly landfill system. Let alone a system that is protected from dogs. Smaller municipalities (majority of the country) without things like hotels or tax from businesses have no hope.

Garbage disposal therefore does need to be a fee on the household, which will inevitably mean the result will be dogs are a lesser problem than the fee. Garbage was the biggest issue last year and this year for municipalities due to strain on the budget it is causing, which is why the push to increase the fee was put forward. 

How can they be introduced though? Many people pay what, 20 baht? Not long back the government wanted municipalities to increase this to 150 baht per month as the government is having to use so much money to cover sending rubbish to city landfills. Even asking the amount of 7x what people currently pay wouldn't have been enough. Some Mayors decided to increase the fee, but the majority didn't for the simple reason it would be political suicide. 

If given the choice, I think a fair percentage of the people would probably just prefer to have the dogs than pay more for more effective waste disposal. 

What was the result of the ultrasound? 

The clubs, who even themselves admit, just left defending themselves too long. The media had all the chances in the world and jumped on the opportunity to label them as criminal gangs. Some members of the groups didn't help the ease of generating the image by being involved in public illegal activity. From the government/police point of view, they seem to think they have the intelligence that a lot of it has moved away from just loving bikes and moved into making money in questionable ways. 

If the law is just based on his own involvement in criminal activity then fair game to the government to do what they have to do. Bike clubs have had a lot of attention for a long time now (whether rightly or wrongly), so members have had a lot of warning to make sure they are squeaky clean. If it is purely based on the fact he is connected with a bike club then not fair game. However, I feel there would be current investigations not open to the public which has formed the decision in the end, rather than he is just a member of a motorcycle club. He can fight that in the courts. 

Your actions always catch up with you. Yes, people deserve second chances. However, when you know you are not a citizen, you know you have previous serious convictions and you know you have a family, then that should be enough to make the decision to leave. Seems the decision for him to leave the club is very easy now once he is facing consequences. Should have done it for your family before. 

21 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Sorry, I don't know what you are trying to say really.  It's the parents fault that the child got bitten as they were not supervising the kid, or its the kids fault it was bitten because she was ignorant how to treat the dogs?  Was the child kicking the dogs, throwing sand at them, pulling their tails?

 

Surely you can see the problem in that situation were the dogs in the street attacking the child?  That is why the street dog problem needs solving... so things like this don't happen.  When I was a child we were allowed to play out in the street, garden, walk to friends houses and go to the park... with NO adult supervision.  We all survived.  The fact was there were no street dogs to bite us, as that was not tolerated in the UK.  So stopping them here in Thailand would be better, or are you just content to have to guard your children constantly until they are over 18?  

 

Oh, and having fences around your property is no guarantee you kids will be safe.  Have you not thought about venomous snakes, scorpions, rabid cats, rats, swarms of angry hornets, bacteria in the soil, poisonous plants, etc etc.  So if you children got in trouble with any of these things you would accept other people saying it was your fault as you were not supervising you children?  

 

 

 

 

The issue with the video wasn't about the dog problem. Is was about a lack of supervision. That is, even when the dogs are taken off the streets if the child isn't supervised the same result will occur, as it does in parks, yards, when dogs get loose etc in Western countries. The 'I survived' argument surely isn't relevant when there are still millions of dog bites per year with the measures of taking them off the streets implemented. In the UK alone haven't dog attack figures risen 76% in the last 10 years? And two thirds of fatalities are children? The US is something closer to 5 million per year. In Australia, children are 3 times more likely to need medical attention from dog bites than adults. 

Dog attack figures have even increased with the Dangerous Dog bans in developed countries (that were forced in due to an ignorant response to the problem of dogs biting rapidly rising). Many people don't survive and many are traumatized.due to their parents taking it easy. I know it is hard for some to accept, but there is a bigger world out there than 'when I was young'. So in the case of the video, regardless of if soi dogs were there or not, the kid was in a dangerous situation as she was on a road and not being supervised (dogs, people, vehicles - did you not see the motorcycle in the video indicating traffic on the most dangerous roads in the world?). 

Are you saying that I should not bother having fences up around my property? That I should just leave my kids to their own devices around my dogs as nothing is a given in the world and anything can kill them? Isn't that the opposite to your earlier stance of taking the dogs off the streets? That even if the dogs were off the streets the kids then may be attacked by snakes, scorpions, rats, hornets etc as nothing is a given. The point is obviously to minimalise chances of these things happening and play the percentages. As the dogs are a constant in my environment then they need to be looked out for first. In the case of Thailand, as dogs aren't coming off the streets anytime soon due to social, political and religious reasons, the only way to minimalise risk is supervision. Supervision to an age where the kid is physically and emotionally capable of handling situations (which obviously will vary with each child). We need to look at it more logically, there isn't going to be a mass cull or neuter of dogs anytime soon whether it is needed or not. So look at education and putting in practices that have more chance of actually being achieved (supervision of young children). All of my relatives know that if we are at their house their gates must be closed, it didn't take long for them to change their ways with some education. Even my nephew who is in kindergarten now shuts the gate after him when he gets dropped off through routine. 

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

Do these dogs just attack children. Don't you honestly think that it's the dogs that need supervision. Don't you think people whether a child or an adult should be able to go about their business without worrying about these creatures. Dogs in packs revert to their natural instincs. BTW these are rhetorical questions, I really don't want to listen to excuses.

Both need supervision. Is the argument to lock up dogs and lets kids roam the streets on the most dangerous roads in the world? Both animal and child require supervision. You are not going to tell me Thai kids have been educated on road safety too are you? Why do you 'honestly' believe young children do not require supervision? Can also be rhetorical :)

However, seeing as that is not the current environment in Thailand as dogs and children are allowed to roam then at least any supervision is required. I would say due to other variables in the community and the fact parents should be with children anyway that supervision of their child may be easier for them than the dog they don't really care about.

We can all dream about a perfect world, but that is a long way off in Thailand, so you put in steps to prevent these things from happening. I have now installed 3 fences in different areas within my border to make sure even if there is a slight chance I am unable to 100% supervise my children, I know they will be safe (and that is with the two family dogs who have been raised/socialised with the kids and have a reputation for being incredibly gentle with their own). If people want to take unnecessary risks with their kids, that is their choice. But don't play the blaming the child card for emotive responses. You put your child in a dangerous situation, then expect a dangerous outcome. The same thing happens in an off leash dog park in the West when parents don't properly supervise. 

Just now, vogie said:

When people show no compassion for a vunerable child instead try to defend the dogs actions by blaming the childs parents for not not being in a supervisory role, I suggest your thought process is seriously flawed.

How am I defending the dogs? I am saying ALL children need constant supervision around ALL dogs, that would be the opposite of defending dogs. The point remains, as the experts say back home, there are various reasons why dogs are more likely to attack children. So supervision is needed. If that is the norm in countries where dogs are fenced and well trained, then it should also be the norm in countries where dogs are not fenced and not well trained. If the argument is that children should be allowed to roam the streets/yards without supervision, then that would mean no dogs should be allowed in any country.