wildewillie89

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?

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. 

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. 

Just now, jak2002003 said:

OH my goodness.... are you actually defending the dogs and blaming the child?!

 

It should be safe enough to let a child play out on the street in a quiet gated moo baan with no through traffic.  Sorry, but children can not be adult supervised 100 percent of the time 24 / 7.  

 

Dogs would just as likely bit the child even if an adult was there.  You can see there are adult about anyway.. who quickly come to the rescue.  

 

I have a dog myself.. I was walking her down the road when 3 dogs surrounded up and attacked her.. I was lucky to be able to get the dogs off my dog when some people came to help.  And YES these were STREET DOGS and did not have owners.  

 

Of course a street dog is going to be territorial... that is a dogs nature.  It will defend its area.. so a part of  a street, outside a shop, or a place where it rests or gets food.    It will also attack other strange dogs / new dogs that venture into its territory.  In fact street dogs would be more dangerous.. as they form packs and will attack on mass.  An owned dog is usually a single dog or a couple... not 10 plus animals.  

 

 

Did I blame the child? Don't get overly dramatic. I think it was pretty clear that the point was there are reasons why dogs attack children more than adults. For example, past bad experiences with other children that are taken out on new children. And if adults aren't there to prevent it from happening then really there are bigger problems going on. 

It is exactly the same everywhere in the world. Supervise ALL young children around ALL dogs. There are numerous reasons why this should occur. It is meant to be safe back home as well, but it isn't and the point remains, closely supervise children around dogs. No through traffic? If the dogs weren't going to get the poor kid, the motorbike in the video and most likely the other vehicles would have. Supervision! 

33 minutes ago, vogie said:

Can't find the link to the american, but here's one just showing how ingratiating soi dogs can be. Please don't tell me that soi dogs are not a problem.

 

Where is the supervision of the child? It is why experts back home tell us to firstly educate children how to interact with dogs (don't eye gauge, throw sand in face, stare, pull tails etc). and equally as important, supervise your children around ALL dogs at ALL times (regardless if soi or well trained). Aren't the majority of dog attacks in the West on children also for these very reasons. 

1 hour ago, Airbagwill said:

However feeding the dogs is only half the problem....their main food supply is garbage. So one has to totally reform the methods for waste disposal too.

Problematic as the government is trying to push municipalities to have no bins. Which will no doubt result in people leaving garbage bags on the streets twice a week, and littering at all other times. 

On 2/6/2018 at 9:39 AM, colinneil said:

Your comments disgust me

A tad drama queen don't you think? You even criticise police when they do feel good things in their own free time for the poor, criticise to the point where you still refuse to believe things even when government policies or official investigations from overseas are written in front of you. Move on. 

KK Hospital I have no doubt has had stories about cleanliness. Just like most government hospitals in Thailand. The building I was admitted was new so very clean just like back home. The rest of the hospital was filthy. What it has going for it are good specialists. 

I am sure many people have had only positive experiences with police/officials and a negative experience with health staff. Many health staff are actually officials also so it is a bit contradictory. 

Anyway, the point is obviously don't judge everyone on a few limited experiences. 

Move on. 

Rest up. 

4 hours ago, cyberfarang said:

Whatever you do don`t use Chaindrite. The fumes are lethal and powerful enough to collapse the lungs of an elephant. 

 

If you have dogs or cats, first treat them with Frontline to kill off any ticks living on them. Then get an old cup or plastic dish and half fill it with that blue coloured alcohol that can be bought in drug stores, 7/Elevens and many other stores. Buy a pair of metal tweezers, the larger the better. Then search through your furniture and other areas of the home to find the ticks. Pick up the ticks with the tweezers and place them into the container of alcohol that will instantly kill them. When you have several in the alcohol flush it down the toilet. Repeat the process until satisfied the ticks are gone from your home. After that treat your pets with Frontline at least once every couple of months to ensure the ticks don`t infest your home again. Prevention is better than cure.

Agree with the Chaindrite, there are Safety Data Sheets online and it looks like pretty hardcore stuff (can be fatal if inhaled). I wouldn't be using it indoors, nor would I be using it around any loved ones/animals and if had to as a last resort I would get someone in to do it and live somewhere else for a couple of days. 

Prevention is 100% better than cure. The OP case is different as a soi dog has created the problem, but people with pets should not have problems that cause them to have to use such dangerous chemicals. 

However, Frontline is not really prevention. It is a monthly product, and their website says that it takes up to 48 hours for it to kill ticks (so ticks have time to transmit disease). Not to mention the product is less efficient than other products - which explains the many problems people have with ticks (infestation/disease) in the 'pet' section of the forum who even treat their animals monthly. 

Bravecto/Nexgard are 3 monthly and monthly products that kill ticks within 24 hours (so very little chance of disease being transmitted), and are also more efficient (kill higher percentages of ticks). 

1 minute ago, lowprofile said:

We used Frontline and also did some spraying with Chaindrite.

Yeah, spot ons don't seem to work too well in Thai. Bravecto/Nexgard are hardcore drugs, but the risks of side effects are outweighed by the chances of infestation/disease. 

Just now, lowprofile said:

I used to have two dogs and they were treated for ticks regularly - still had infestations. Nothing seemed to work.

Got a Bravecto for the dog.

Bayticol to spray the general area.

And also some Chaindrite powder which is also supposed to kill the little gits.

I will try the liquid Chaindrite in the plastic wrapped sofa, too.

Did you use Bravecto/Nexgard or spot on treatments/collars/injections/baths? All those things are less effective. The in-laws dog was always infested when treated with those things, but since going on Bravecto has never had a tick found on her since. 

I think people over complicate it. Start by treating the dog in the immediate area and clean the house/yard. Any missed eggs from the clean up will not be diseased (when hatch) as they have to attach to a host first to pick up the bacteria. If there is no host in the immediate area they will die anyway as they cant find a feeding (as the CDC states). 

Future infestations will be avoided as there is obviously no host in the area (if treatment is kept up). So the ticks will either die due no feeding (killed when come in contact with treated host), and will also not have the chance to lay any future eggs as ticks will not be able to mate on the host (killed when come into contact with treated host). 

There is no secret as to why people who properly treat their dogs in Thailand (Bravecto/Nexgard) do not have problems with ticks. Problems usually occur as people do not choose the most effective treatments or forget to continue to treat the hosts. 

Regardless of what path you go down, if the dog isn't treated then it is just going to be a never ending battle. Buy a Bravecto tablet at the vet (750 baht) and give it to him if it is a soi dog. 3-4 months of no host plus the dog will be much better off too. Ticks usually take 24 hours to transmit disease so make sure to check yourself regularly. 

Considering how infected they are, how many skin issues they have, the fearful environment they live in (being beaten every day) and how many directions the one leg is pointing in, I think many look quite happy (when not having to interact with humans or cars). The diet is shocking, but on the plus side as feeding times are not adhered to the dogs are quite lean - which is probably helping prevent many of the health issues dogs back home are plagued with. 

Dogs are social animals, so even with all the pain dogs are in, it is a good chance they are probably happier roaming than being locked up with the walk each day. Especially if owners do not spend a lot of time with their dogs (nearly always the case) or only have the one dog. Obviously the health benefits of keeping dogs away from street dogs outweigh doing this, but if we are strictly talking happiness/'sad looking'. 

In terms of looks, just look what show breeding has done to many breeds now in farang land - many struggle to even walk and breathe now (street dogs match up quite well). I will be the first to admit one of my breeds isn't regarded as what people consider pretty, but as I am not sleeping with him, what difference does it make how he looks? 

50 minutes ago, malibukid said:

what i want to know is why isn't the Thai government not concerned about this problem.  there needs to be a cull or neuter/vaccination program for these stray soi dogs.  was bitten a few years ago by a temple dog and had to be treated with a series of rabies shots to play it safe.  i took the hospital bill to the monk and asked for compensation.  he laughed.  typical. no capability as usual.  on Bali the government regularly enforces such programs.  they also have very strict quarantine regulations for bringing pets onto the island.  could not get my kitty in.  my boy has to stay in LOS while i am gone

They do have vaccination programs in higher risk areas and keep records of what household dogs have been vaccinated (April-May and September-October). Before vets did it, but now the government has finally got into second gear (due to this 2020 goal) and has trained local government departments to do it. So it would depend on where you live and whether the area has been declared rabies free or not. According to Khon Kaen University, the estimated dog vaccine coverage is 78%. I personally believe if they tagged/tattooed the stray dogs they vaccinated and vaccinated them every 3 years rather than annually, that percentage would be much higher (as budgets/vaccines would go a lot further). 

The doctors will always give you rabies shots after a bite as it is not uncommon for Thai to drive to other provinces to dump dogs (better to be safe than sorry). Most of the rabies fatalities (>99%) in the country have not received the post shots.  

The government is concerned and used to act more aggressively. Then a group of do-gooders lobbied against the rounding up of dogs on grounds of cruelty. Which was a nice idea, just not an idea well thought out as no other solutions were offered re control of population, disease etc. In terms of neutering, budgets only extend so far and a lot of Thai people probably would put pressure on the government to spend the money on the people, not the dogs, so it is quite complicated. 

I think a lot of it is down to laziness, and yes, just not really caring. Has that come about due to other variables over the years such as disease, lack of knowledge resulting in fearful aggressive behaviour etc...possibly/possibly not.

Many Thai leave their dogs to roam the streets (so to them get the required exercise), and the ones who don't are sometimes of the belief that if you lock your dog it will be a better guard dog.

Walk my dogs daily, but what can it involve. Having packs of dogs running and circling you barking. Unless people are used to dogs, and their own dogs can handle such situations without too much of a shift in emotion then it's more effort than its worth for many.

Education is important. The Mrs family love and play with my dogs, but won't play with their own dogs (although at least treat them). Purely a difference in the way the dogs had been brought up (actually being a real member of the family). The Mrs originally didn't really care all that much, but even surprised me last week when she had to spend time in hospital giving birth to our son and said she missed the dogs.