wildewillie89

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

You're going to have to translate (into laymans' terms) the second para. as I'm not an expert, and have no idea as to the meaning of ACL's or "dogs doing their knees".  (Thinking about it, possibly joint problems re. the latter?)

 

Relying on personal experience, I had one un-neutered male (as I always longed for a puppy from him ) but this turned into a problem when he developed peeing and crapping problems, which was first mis-diagnosed as an enlarged prostate necessitating neutering.  Long (depressing) story short, the 'prostate problem' was a red herring that diverted attention from the actual problem (bladder cancer) for far too long .

 

So personally, I'd 'recommend' that adult male dogs in Thailand are neutered before they get oldish.

 

Re. bitches (again in Thailand) it's a bit easier as nobody wants an unwanted litter.  I was suprised though when an adopted, neutered female bled every month/now and again and was told by the vet it was due to the way the sterilisation had been performed .  Fortunately neutering techniques have improved and I don't have the same 'problem' with my two remaining () bitches.

 

As always, there will be advantages and possible disadvantages to neutering as all the experts argue amongst themselves.

ACL stands for anterior crutiate ligament. Although in animals it is CCL or cranial cruiciate ligament from memory. Similar structures so a lot studies are done on dogs to benefit humans. Desexing significantly increases the likely hood of the ligament rupturing. Dog takes a good few months after surgery to move properly again, and then usually the other one goes as well. 

I think age is important. The window to help with mammary cancer seems to be doing the procedure before 2.5 years old. 

Around 2.5 years is also important in the sense that joints and bones should have formed already. Other than ligament issues, hip and elbow dysplasia risks are doubled with early desexing for the obvious reason that desexing increases height, longer bones, so naturally don't fit into sockets properly. Breeders now put in their contracts that the contract is void if owners desex before 2 years and the dog gets structural problems. 

For me, I think I just need to do a lot more research. Leave the ovaries in or take them out? Leave them in and risk mammary cancer, but feeling the dog and frequent check ups and getting it early gives a good prognosis. Take them out and increase risk of more serious cancers like bone cancer that usually requires amputation of a front leg. Wonder if they do vasectomies in Thai clinics for male dogs. 

 

The city I am, the Big C and Tesco are currently doing some significant upgrading (bringing in a cinema). Many more housing estates also seem to be going up everywhere and people in my immediate area seem to be renovating. So couldn't be all bad if people can find money to be buying unnecessarily expensive houses and are looking forward to spending their hard earned on luxuries like the movies. The farming prices are probably the thing many are struggling with. 

Don't necessarily agree with what the boys up the top are doing with a lot of things, but from a purely selfish point of view, it would be good if they stayed in for a few more years. Our local Mayor is ex-army and has been ranked top 20 out of the 8,500 odd Mayors in the country in his first term purely from developing the place. It went from not having running water, to having water, free nursery with dental check ups, markets, canals for farmers, juvenile prison, rice research lab, lined roads, even free wifi for the villagers where the introduced exercise equipment is. Also now looks like Immigration will move there, with plans to build a new school to replace the village schools.  

Every Mayor in the province has since elected him to represent the province with the Governor in the hope for further development and he is also in charge to watch over police corruption (already has forced powerful trucking companies to pay road taxes rather than specific police departments). 

32 minutes ago, Arjen said:

In my homecountry they advise to neuter female dogs when they are adult. This reduces the risk for breast cancer, and an other kind of cancer from what I do not know the english name.

 

We have all our female dogs neutered, as we have many dogs, and it saves us from a lot of trouble when a female dog is "in heat" 

 

Our male dogs have "bad luck"wen the behavior requires an operation. So far only one of them had this bad luck.... What happens often with neutered dogs is that they gain wait. Our male dog became very, very heavy. 

 

Only one female dog is gaining some weight, but not excessive....

 

Arjen.

 

Yes, weight gain was the other concern. I think it is more of a must and you are right to do it in your situation due to the fact you have a big pack. 

I never had the chance to own dogs that weren't done of an age above puppy hood. We got fed that it is important for temperament (really it is population control). Living in Thai and interacting with many dogs who aren't done, I can see now the temperament point is a load of rubbish. 

Yes, I think females are definitely more important to do. The large to giant size breeds just leave the ovaries in (getting a quote for that next week).

Anyone had a gastropexy done to limit chances of bloat? I had one dog die in the past from bloat, pretty brutal experience to go through and mine are high risk breeds. 

We leave windows (with fly screens) open all day so the house remains relatively cool. If at home leave the doors open too, sometimes leave doors open even if not home. Then when it starts to get dark we just close the doors. Might find one or two insects around, but the tennis racquet zapper things take care of them, or the lizards/spiders. 

Used to leave the outside light on, but now don't even do that as the insects and then lizards, frogs and snakes come running. Just leave the motion sensor spot light on instead. 

If I have to be outside at night I will just use a bit of mosquito repellent cream. Thinking of putting in some plants around the place that act as natural pesticides and see how they go. 

A thought that just occurred to me was 'desexing'. What are people's positions on spaying and neutering? It seems more and more vets, not restricted by local laws, seem to be coming out advocating not to do it, or not until the dog has fully formed anyway. 

My female is about 20 months old now, so it is heading to the time where I am thinking about getting her done. On the flip side of that I was chatting to my sister the other day and got talking about how a few of our dogs back in Australia did their ACLs. I looked into it a bit and desexing significantly increases the likelihood of dogs doing their knees. 

Pyometra and breast cancer seem to be the two key points to desex for a female. However, recent studies have suggested a more aggressive form of cancer, bone cancer, is linked to desexing also (for bigger dogs). From my understanding, Scandanavian countries don't do it much unless a medical emergency (like Pyometra), so I am weighing up the options. Currently I am looking at taking the uterus out, but leaving the ovaries in to balance hormones, or if I don't then separating them during heat. 

For males, their seems to be no real benefit to having them done other than to stop unwanted humping/marking behaviour (I am assuming people have secured yards of course re roaming). As a big cancerous tumour in the genitals should be noted in the annual check up by the vet. Their is the old myth that it will help with aggression, but with males it seems to do nothing, and for females it may actually increase aggression. 

Just a different thought in terms of health, as where I come from dogs are done within the first 6 months of life so I haven't really ever looked into it. 

5 minutes ago, speedtripler said:

The real money is not the salary itself, its the money you can skimm off from the garbage  

 

All the bags hanging on the sides of the truck are things they are collecting because they know someone who will buy it

Yes, in the bigger cities. But in most average places the people keep onto that stuff themselves and sell it on. Either to the cars doing the rounds or going to the plant themselves to get a better rate. So for many, unfortunately, the salary makes up a high percentage of their monthly income. One of our guys works as a garbo by day and a waiter at night to get a bit of extra cash.

Even more depressing, depending on the municipality policy, the money that is made from selling stuff on is shared around to the more 'important' figures and a little bit is then given to the garbo guys. 

34 minutes ago, speedtripler said:

From what I've heard, it pays so well that thais don't mind doing it (unlike the backbreaking cheap  farm labour they outsource) 

If it pays 3x as much as a regular job they can go home, have a shower and be pretty wealthy by Thai standards

Most people would consider a job they disliked for 3 or 4x the salary they could get doing anything else because you can buy a house or a nice  truck etc 

Maybe in the bigger cities it can pay well (also depends on the volume of stuff they can sell on). Bigger areas will do their collections during the night, so maybe they pay a bit of overtime.

However, on the most part I am not sure it does pay so well. Usually to secure the job the person will need to pay anywhere between 20-50k. Maybe 15k if a relative. The salary is around 7,000-8,500 per month. 

I think the most important thing to do is just watch the dogs extremely closely (and have a good look at their waste). Early treatment for any problem is the most effective treatment. 

37 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

A UK 'dog-breeder' friend (all pets, and she only bred one litter a year) was adamant that only puppy vaccinations were necessary, and annual vaccinations thereafter were harmful - and as I've only known puppies or never vaccinated dogs die from these diseases, I'm inclined to believe her.

The world guidelines use Dr. Ronald Schultz research. He is kind of the god father of vaccines. In the 1970s from memory he had already said vaccination protocol should be 3 years with his, then, current research. It took 20 odd years for the governments to finally believe him. 

He doesn't vaccinate his dogs, other than rabies (required by law), after puppy hood. However, he titer tests them to know exactly when the mothers antibodies have left the dog, and he titer tests them throughout their lives,  That is probably where your friend is getting her information from. The current trend in the West now is to titer, not vaccinate. Over vaccination has a range of possible immediate side effects, but many more long term side effects. Seeing as the laws have been changed in developed countries to 3 yearly, I cant see why we shouldn't follow this also. 

Thai vets will claim 'climate' effects vaccines. However, when the WSAVA came to Thai, they found no research or training on vaccinology in Thai universities so it is a load of garbage. I understand this is a very different style of thinking for many as it challenges life time thoughts. However, it is science. I would personally suggest follow Western/World guidelines. Puppy vaccines, then 12 months later, and then every 3 years after that. I would also only vaccinate core. Find a vet that stocks the 3 in 1, rather than 7 in 1. If the vet doesn't stock it, probably says a lot about his knowledge of vaccinology and more about his knowledge of business. 

Minimum Duration Of Immunity For Canine Vaccines

Distemper- 7 years by challenge/15 years by serology
Parvovirus – 7 years by challenge/ 7 years by serology
Adenovirus – 7 years by challenge/ 9 years by serology
Canine rabies – 3 years by challenge/ 7 years by serology

Dr Schultz concludes: “Vaccines for diseases like distemper and canine parvovirus, once administered to adult animals, provide lifetime immunity.”  (Are we vaccinating too muchJAVMA, No. 4, August 15, 1995, pg. 421)

1 hour ago, Arjen said:

I am still not sure about the vaccinations. I have a dog who travels on a regular base with me to Europe, and to be allowed to import him in Europe, and again in Thailand he must have his yearly vaccinations. So all our animals get them. And I do not see any suffering from this.

 

Arjen.

 

Travelling would be a different matter, as they are much more strict in keeping out diseases that are not in the country already. For example, if I was even to attempt to take my dogs to Australia I think they have to go into an approved quarantine centre for many months regardless if they have annual or 3 yearly vaccinations.

But for the most part, most dogs usually remain in Thailand. The link below is an overview of a report that conducted a survey with 700 vet clinics in Asia (including Thai). It discusses the lack of university research and training countries like Thailand have on vaccines and how far they are behind with global trends or the WSAVA guidelines (one of my vets had never even heard of the WSAVA). 

I had to go to my old vet the other day as my new one wasn't open. My female got her rabies shot, he said get another one next year. I said in 3 years. He then said, why why it is only 60 baht? Then his wife, who is also a vet, said I don't think it is the 60 baht that is worrying him, it is the side effects of the vaccine (full knowing that farang do 3 years). The husband had to accept that. The rabies shot was Defensor 3, the product literally says 3 years. My new vets is a different brand that says 2 years from memory. So research what brand you use, as when the guidelines changed, the 1 year product was just re-branded as 3 years (no change in ingredients). Just a change in the fact actual research was done on the product rather than guessing guidelines.

The rabies vaccine is blocked by the original rabies vaccine if over administered anyway. Currently research is trying to extend it even further (5 years). So if the vaccine is blocked anyway, all we are doing is risking side effects. So the most common 'long-term' side effects of rabies vaccines are cancer at injection site, seizures, epilepsy, auto immune/organ diseases, digestive issues and weakness in muscles. 

The 7 in 1 is a whole range of issues (I would spend a good day researching it). Particularly as Lepto is included in it (non-core for good reasons), and that they are all mixed in together. The WSAVA report makes mention to these 7 in 1 vaccines as controlling the market in Asia, which are forcing people to do them purely as their DOI is annual. One of my money hungry vets only stocks that. My good vet stocks the 3 core in 1 vaccine. Probably a good way in Thailand to see if your vets are any good/up to date is by the range of vaccines they house.  The other 4 things that are covered the dog will either get better by itself if healthy, or the diseases are easily treated. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25291304

Crush the eggs shells into a powder and sprinkle it onto their food then. There is always ways to get dogs to eat things if you try. 

I get the pork argument, and although it can be an issue for dogs, it is much more problematic for humans. A lot of dog owners see it as a bit of a story that was relevant before, but now not so much due to regulations (even in Thai). I buy my meat in bulk so freeze it for various amounts of times. The symptoms a dog may have from any parasite will depend on, again, how strong its immune system is. So for me, a risk analysis would say feed the dog pork (I am yet to have problems). The only meat the dogs have had issues with is lung, which caused the runs for a day. Boiled rice and boiled chicken fixed that. Interesting Thai vets (like most vets) will almost always recommend chicken if a dog is sick, but yours seems to say no? 

Also it is useful to see where the pig comes from and what they are feeding them. The village shops are helpful with that as generally you will know the owner and be able to see their farms. Also now, even in rural Thai, the pork must be killed in a controlled slaughter house which is inspected by public health officials before being legally sold in even the village shops, whereas before it was more backyard killings/dirty equipment etc. 

Chicken is an allergen for dogs, but most foods are if deciding to feed raw (many dry dog foods are also). So if a dog does react, you do an elimination diet to find the cause, and replace that protein source with a new source. If the argument is just not to try that food, then the same argument should be applied with eggs, beef, lamb, pork and fish (most common allergens according to pets.webMD). 

So again, it comes down to a risk analysis. Worry about everything without even trying it and just feeding a diet that has one or two sources only and will not benefit the dog (may as well feed dog food). I would say considering there are constant posts about dogs being continually infected with diseases, people not socialising/taking their dogs out due to fear of disease, the chance of a reaction to food that can be immediately eliminated from the diet is far outweighed by the overall better health/happiness of the dog.

27 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm concerned/interested as to your frequent reference to "poor diet".

 

I started a thread (a long time ago) asking for advice on raw meat diets but (from memory!) the links provided were US based, so unhelpful.  Not to mention one of the dogs I 'knew' that died from tick-borne blood parasites had 'owners' that certainly did their best to provide the best food possible, including all the extra supplements considered a 'good idea'.

 

This is way off-topic, but I'm sure we'd all be v interested in your views as to a good diet.

 

This sounds sarcastic, but it's not meant that way!

As a puppy, I would just feed puppy or all purpose dog food (for bigger breeds) with a bit of raw to get them used to it. Purely as you don't have to worry about the phosphorus calcium ratios having negative impacts on skeletal development. As the dog gets a bit older and forms more, then I see it as better to feed raw (as most adult dog food has nothing of any real substance in it unless it is the top price stuff most people won't buy - not to mention the bloat/teeth factor). Breeds are also a factor, I have owned ancient breeds and newer breeds and have found the older breeds just do better on raw. Variety is important though if feed raw, so not just feeding one source of meat everyday to the dog. 

Depending on who you ask you will get different percentages. But generally a raw diet will be made up of predominantly of meat and meaty bones, bones and the rest should be organs and dinner left overs that include fruit and vegetables, some carbs etc. Interestingly enough, table scraps also help reduce the likelihood of the dog developing bloat. 

All that is relative to where you live of course and your own diet in terms of table scraps. Some times, especially this time of year, the shops will lack what I want. 
 

In saying all that, what I do with my dogs is give a whole fish in the morning with a boiled egg. The egg shell helps prevent things like joint disease, arthritis etc which my dogs need as they work hard body slamming concrete walls all day. The fish is for the fatty acids (boost immune system) and the dogs coat. 

Dinner is on and off. So the dog will sometimes purely get one of their regular 3 sources of protein meat (chicken, pork, beef) with a bone of a different source of animal, or some nights will get their filler foods as I call them. The bits of fruit, veges, organs and carbs. My dogs aren't really into table food so what I will do is blend in the organs with it which will give them enough of a sniff to eat it.

So night time maybe something like a couple of chicken thighs with pork bones. Sometimes some beef with a chicken carcass etc. Then one or two nights a week I might have had a stir fry or something similar with lots of veges (I eat boring so no sauces), so any left over I will mix in with some organ and some apple cider vinegar and blend it in for them. Or if have left over fruit I will mix some heart or liver in to give the dogs as a snack. I am sure the correct way is to feed the right % daily but I am of the belief that dogs in the wild wouldn't necessarily get the exact right diet daily and would make up for it a few days later.  

On occasions as treats I may just throw down a some head, leg, tongue, lung, heart, brain etc of various meats I can find. 

Supplements, in my opinion, come from the food. I am no nutritionist, but in the 2 years of living here the dogs have never had any disease or been sick (other than puppy mange), bloods and even coat is now perfect and only get washed once a year (to protect guard hairs). I have no doubt the dogs have been exposed to Leptospirosis where I live and got over it themselves due to functioning immune systems.

We all just need to be careful, we can generally provide a better likelihood for these sorts of things than the local folk. 

The most common tick borne disease that threatens our pets according to Mahidol University is Rickettsia (anaplasma/ehrlichia). Both these bacteria can be naturally eliminated by the dog even without treatment  if the dog is well looked after (diet/exercise). If the dog is strong, and treated in the initial phase, then there is not many reasons why the dog shouldn't make a full recovery. 

If the dog is not strong (poor diet), then it is more likely to move to a chronic phase or the dog will become a carrier - which makes treatment tough. Of course, this is assuming we have missed the initial phase and dog seems back to his usual self after being sick (sub-clinical phase).

Also should be noted that the ridiculous over-vaccination that happens in Thai will make recovery that much tougher. My current vet graduated from Chulalongkorn University and when the I questioned the Thai protocol (with the WSAVA paper), he went off to do his own research and said will get back to me. Now, he is very happy with just giving our dogs the 3 in 1 and rabies every 3 years. So only 2 vaccines covering 4 diseases every 3 years, rather than the annual 7 in 1 plus annual rabies. Dogs cant fight diseases when  their immune systems are taking such a battering. 

19 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

V interesting post wildewillie, especially as I've noticed that my dog with skin problems has also been v tired recently.  I put it down to the anti-allergy tablets, but perhaps it's the Nexguard.

 

Worryingly, my other dog's back legs sometimes shake when standing - so thanks to your post I've realised it's also possible that this could be due to the Nexguard!

 

Only one way to find out of course - I'll have to change back to Bravecto and see if the skin problems/tiredness and leg shaking improve/disappear.

Hopefully it is the Nexgard and not something else. The good thing is if it is the Nexgard, then the body will not take long to dispose of it as it is only a one month treatment - rather than 3 month. My dog was herself again reasonably quickly.

Usually milk thistle is used to detox these drugs. Will not counteract the drugs, but stories from owners and vets say that it helps. 

I think, for many, it will be possible to even extend the Bravecto to 4 months (instead of 3). It is quite a strong product and seems my dogs haven't had any ticks for that extra month. It is not overly expensive, but no real research has been done on prolonged use of it so I would be wary. Yes, it eventually leaves the system, but then we just give the dogs another dose of it. 

I was a member for a while for the Bravecto/Nexgard campaigns, just to get information from both sides before giving it to my dogs. Some dogs clearly have suffered from the drugs, but where the campaigns are let down is that they think any illness their dog gets is related to the drug. A lot of the time it is merely coincidence due to the fact the dog is on the drugs 100% of its life (it is why vets ignore the campaigns). They were calling for a full banning of the drug, I wanted a restricted use of it (as the side effects are smaller than the rate of tick diseases in some parts of the world - Thailand lol). So they asked me to leave the group. Some good people, but a lot of out right nutjobs in the group too. 

Dogs react differently to each drug, both drugs or neither drug. 

One of my dogs does wonderfully on Bravecto, but the vet wasn't in stock one time so we tried Nexgard for that month. The dog became itchy and also lost energy (enough for me to make another vet visit). The vet was of the opinion it was the Nexgard and reported the side effects to the company. I will not touch the stuff ever again for that dog.

Have had friends who have had neurological symptoms with Nexgard. So the legs and arms twitch/shake at random times.

Can try both drugs (and different times obviously), but watch very closely for side effects, and get annual routine blood tests of course to make sure the dog is handling the drugs okay. Generally, most dogs will be okay, however there are a lot of campaigns against these drugs who seem to think they have a lot of evidence to back up their claims that many dogs suffer. The only real study done on the drugs was funded by the company and performed on Beagles (who are pretty tough with drugs). FDA/EPA is also starting to add warnings to the drugs - such as chance of seizure etc. 

But nothing else of any relevance to many in Thailand as of yet,  so we are incredibly restricted.

If it does its intended job and if not overly important how it looks or that it isn't as strong as it could possibly be then I would just get the local jack of all trades guy in. Would have been a similar price for us with 2 of the local village guys we use for maintenance. 

If use company/specialist the price will be ridiculous. The are usually just used by the government buildings and the rich so quote high numbers. 

Back fence - (I'm at work but from memory 20 gaps that needed to be filled, each gap 2.5mx1.8m high), was 5,000 baht in labour (paint, weld, connect to posts).
Child play safe area - also with a gate that continues along the house was 7,000 to install (paint, weld, bolt to ground). 

Slightly different from yours as no holes dug, and the price was just a job price, not based on square metres.
However, am needing to do another one similar to yours with dug holes (30mx1.8m with gate), and wouldn't expect it to be anymore than 10,000. 

Just two cousins of a very close friend of ours who do things relatively cheap so you keep giving them work. They came and measured it all up, wrote a list of what they needed and just told us to get the shop to send the materials to their house. Our friend is a cost engineer for the local area so materials weren't that much as went through the shop that he uses. They said just to pay for the electricity, fuel and a bit of labour. Fences are strong enough for their purposes (not block out the view, and keep kids safe if we have to be in the front part of the house near carport). 

Doubtful for it to be the hair colour (especially if the hair is that short). 

Other possibilities:

1. Modern technology creates massive male populations for girls to choose from (as many conventional holidays guys use the apps too). It is great for the girls, as in one night they can find many better looking possibilities than what they used to be restricted to in the same age bracket. Not so great for many guys.   

2. If talking guys in their 20s, many 'attractive' Thai women I know now seek guys who live overseas (in their 20s). They 'generalise' from their limited experiences the ones living in Thai as having something wrong with them. They are of the belief the only reason other than family, high paying job etc to move to a 3rd world country from a 1st is they cant find 'fun' back home (so to them added health risks, maybe not as good looking as they previously thought they were before widening their search, odd personalities, why aren't farang girls wanting them?).

3. Prolonged unrealistic expectations. Easy for a young guy in Thailand, everything is handed to them. So they become lazy, girls pick up on this and know what it is all about and really couldn't be bothered with those guys anymore. 

By that logic, the OP should be able to get an appointment in the next few days. 

Yes, usually the tribunal is in the same area the Governor sits himself. 

Lease I don't think is relevant. If landlord decides not to renew because of this then it is not a landlord the OP would probably want to live under anyway. If the OP doesn't do anything, then he probably wouldn't want to renew his own lease, even if given the option, as the nuisance would still exist. The process doesn't take that long, so the OP isn't exactly wasting time, especially if he has a Mrs who can guide him through the process to make it that much smoother. 

In terms of time. Proper process is usually an initial complaint to Tessaban (can be anonymous). They will do their investigation. If the person calls up and isn't happy with the investigation, then they will fill out a complaints form at the tribunal and receive an appointment for a hearing which may take an hour. No real loss of time when considering what can possibly be achieved. 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why is it I can't own a handgun back home, but I could own a dog that will kill without being ordered to ( self motivating weapon )?

I have no problem with large aggressive dogs joining the long list of animals exterminated by humans.

I think it is more complicated than that. Take Australia for example, we got rid of guns so gun related injuries/death went down.

We also introduced breed specific legislation to not allow these proposed dogs. However, according to the Australian Veterinary Association, breed specific legislation has failed to reduce the number of dog attacks. This is an extract from their webpage:

The failure of breed-specific legislation to prevent dog attacks is due to a number of factors:
•    Breed on its own is not an effective indicator or predictor of aggression in dogs. 4,5,6
• It is not possible to determine precisely the breed of the types of dogs targeted by breed-specific legislation by appearance or by DNA analysis.4,5
• The number of animals that would need to be removed from a community to have a meaningful impact on hospital admissions is so high that the removal of any one breed would have negligible impact.4
• Breed-specific legislation ignores the human element whereby dog owners who desire this kind of dog will simply substitute another breed of dog of similar size, strength and perception of aggressive tendencies.4,5,6

Do we really want to exterminate some sub-species of animals due to human ignorance? Many breeds that would probably be included in your comment are quite useful. Some are preventing other animals like penguins, wolves cheetahs etc from becoming extinct as we speak. 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The OP apparently being a farang probably has no connections, unless he married the police chief's daughter.

The thing about corruption in developing countries is that the governing body of the day disallows some to take the focus off others. So the current stance on no corruption is what is being used around the country in these tribunals. These tribunals are the only places local officials are scared of if they get called to them and they haven't done the proper investigations (other than courts). The Army tackles corruption at more local areas and I'm sure we can all guess why. A 'noisy bar in a quiet neighbourhood' is not something the Army are really interested in (as it is minute corruption) so there really is no need for the farang to have connections. The legal and relatively simple channels are all the connections he needs to overcome something like that - if it indeed is like he says it is. 

Don't understand the police reference. The police have no real relevance to a case like this as it is Public Health law. The police only come into it if the local officials/Mayor ask them to act on the fine (if they don't, then the Governor can). The problem most farang find themselves in is they complain to the police (who may be on the take) and wonder why nothing comes from it. Why? Would we complain about a noisy bar back home to the police? No, we complain to the municipality. The odd house party you would complain to the police. It is exactly the same in Thailand. 

Security mesh (saves on the mosquitoes also) is probably the only thing I would go with. Shutters and fires just leave a sick feeling in your gut. 

Obviously have good fencing around the place, a few CCTV cameras for the slight chance they may deter some people. 

We live rural and leave most of our windows open all day with no one home to air the place out. We just have two working dogs who do constant patrols of the property. According to National Geographic the dogs have the stopping power of .45 cal bullet. Also better with kids than things like guns laying around the place (as if in safes they are useless in emergencies).  

I figure if people are keen enough to get through the fence and dogs (ie shoot their way through), then it wouldn't matter what we had they would get through, so prefer just to let the house stay a house, rather than a fortress. 

I tend to agree. Pay them to keep them off your back, but just remember they cannot protect you like they say. As Public Health law has scope outside of the police.