kwilco

It's a national disgrace - the government is doing littlemore than window dressing. It will cost the country trillions in lost working hours due to ill-health and it will seriously damage the tourist industry At present people of influence are resisting changes to industrial and agricultural pollution - this needs to stop.

As I mentioned earlier on Phuket, the largest island in Thailand the SDF using CNVR, has effectively eliminated rabies but the threat still exists via the importation of dogs to market to be sold as pets.. In some countries small (usually uninhabited) islands have have had invasive species such as rats eliminated, but they then have to be constantly vigilant to make sure they don't return....usually via humans. This is still in effect a form of the vacuum effect. It is also why sterilisation and vaccination are so important as ot prevents the vacuum effect and thrn reduces breeding.

" You are twisted and biased: - how so? What is my bias?

not "belief", it is hard evidence

"It is all reported." - that's where your premise falls down - THailand has no reliable RTI reporting system - least of all the police. THe graph you have used as a one quote wonder is from 2008. The problem is that collisions in Thailand re not subject to a scientific report and then people don't knw how to interpret the statisitics - the t result is the uathorities don't actually know why the accidents happen and the public just draw hugely simplistic and wildly inaccurate conclusions. Just saying "speeding" was th cause is an easy way for those investigating an accident to make the whole thing disappear. What they don't do is accurately tell us how speeding is involved....or even what they think speeding is.

ah my stalker returns - with more inaccurate information. DUI is Thailand is higher and cited as around 30 to 35% in RTIs - however this is about the same as many other countries, including the USA.

You are misinterpreting the "police reports" - speeding is subjective without proper road crash reports. In Thailand te police reports are just amateur nonsense by untrained individuals Speeding is a "factor" and seldom the single cause. THe higher the speed the higher the possibility of serious injury. In urban environments the density of traffic and the mix of road users e.g pedestrians and slow moving vehicles makes collisions more likely. To mitigate this it has been show that reducing speeds to around 35 kmph massively reduces the severity of injuries. THe likelihood of crashing is another matter - it is what happens when a crash happens. Thailand has never had proper signage for urban speed limits either on entering or exiting. In some ppalces now they are introducing limit signs but the derestriction signs are often forgotten. Before it was up to the motorist to know by street lamp frequency etc when they were in an urban environment. What is needed now is a massive publicity campaign followed by some enforcement - it is a matter of changing the national motoring mindset about urban driving.

your premise is incorrect.

It indicates to me that insurance companies can be very quick and helpful in dealing with hospital fees. I take it you don't agree but can't explain why? Or are you just be facetious?

what????

a what??? The article states that he was covered but implied it wa difficult to get sorted - There's no implication that he was "outside" any part of his contract

You are completely wrong you will never find an instance of where they have - all authorities know this - you are alone in your idea - it isn't an opinion because it isn't based on reason or evidence. You have seen the reasons why your naive proposals won't work yet your cognitive dissonance prevents you from admitting you are wrong.

THere are people who visit who are perfectly good motorcyclists. THe problems are when people can't adapt quickly to Thai driving conditions. THere are also a lot of people who don't realise they aren't licenced or insured to drive in Thailand - and the rental companies don't tell them. But I know loads of expats who never adapt to driving in Thailand - mind you they don't realise how badly they drive at home either - except in Thailand the results are far more dire. THey're the ones who spend their time shouting at other motorists

Even that has dire impact on the native eco-system. you also don't know hpow many stay their - the pack system requires dogs to leave and go elsewhere - it also does nothing to stop the spread of disease.

food supply is directly related to the dog population. Whereas feeding by local inhabitants is a problem, the main part of the problem and main source of food is garbage. Most areas of Thailand have very poor garbage collection and terrible waste disposal systems which are. in effect. a never-ending buffet for Soi Dogs. If their food supply is restricted dogs won't breed. As I said earlier restricting the food supply is crucial to reducing the roaming dog problem.

Stray Dogs in Thailand.ppsx

typo - 70,000. in Phuket In BKK the figure was about that. You highlight a problem though and that is one of perception - with CNVR the reduction is slow and people tend not to notice this reduction - in fact a combination of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias prevents them from properly assessing the situation. As a cyclist you know that in certain hotspots you will attract attention from dogs but in other areas they may have reduced in numbers

Why make such a statement - people should be able to judge if they can ride or not - I understand warning them of the dangers and tey need to be aware I take you don't ride a motorbike in Thailand?

For those of you who "prefer not" to read here is a graphic to demonstrate it... Dogs in Thailand-2.pdf

your reply is incorrect - you don't even know what a hypothesis is - I've never read such ill-informed posts as yours - You are not putting forward an argument at all ? You have no basis to suggest how that would work yet it has been clearly demonstrated time and again why it won't.

Why dog culls don’t work. – To start off with, you will find no examples of a successful cull anywhere in the world. (and Thailand’s stray dog problem isn’t unique) CNVR however, has been shown to work – Phuket had over 700,000 strays, by 2022, that number had dropped down to 7,000—mostly thanks to Soi Dog and its CNVR campaigns. For many the problem is they simply don’t notice the difference occurring. Officially now Phuket is rabies free – where is the threat of it re-appearing? Not from a vaccinated stray population but from the dogs imported from the mainland to be sold as pets on the markets. Where dog culls have seen temporary reductions in stray populations, there is no evidence of any successful long-term elimination through culling. Here's why: - The “vacuum effect” is triggered when stray dogs are culled, it creates a "vacuum" in the environment where they lived. This attracts new dogs often younger, unsterilized ones, from surrounding areas. This quickly replenishes the population, negating the initial reduction. Many of the “new” dogs bring in diseases with them and this increases the likelihood of the spread of rabies. Tights become more common as dogs fight over territory and this in turn accelerates the spread of diseases. Increased breeding - It seems some people are unaware of the breeding characteristics of Soi Dogs. Culling disrupts social structures and triggers hormonal changes in the remaining dogs. This leads to increased breeding rates as they attempt to compensate for the loss. This can result in a population rebound that’s even higher than before.. Female dogs can reproduce as early as six months old, and removing some dogs can actually trigger increased reproduction in others. One single bitch can produce 6 to 12 pups in a litter 3 times a year. After six months those pups will be producing litters of their own. A bitch will live from 3 to 5 years. After 5 years at a rate of 7 bitches per annum it could have up to 17,000 descendants all happily reproducing on top of that… if they are neutered that can’t happen. Neutering obviously reduces the breeding rates as does restrictions of food supply – females will not come “on heat” at times of hunger. I’d also be interested to hear what culling methods are being advocated - Those who unthinkingly propose culls clearly haven’t thought out the practicalities of a cull especially in Thailand – Firstly there is the obvious impossibility of complete eradication: Eliminating all dogs across a large area is in all practical impossible. Even seemingly thorough culls miss hidden dogs, pregnant females, and pups born shortly after. These survivors quickly reproduce, leading to population resurgence. The next thing to consider is HOW you will kill them – poisoning is far to unrestricted and potentially damaging to both humans and wildlife – you also have to consider what to do with a sudden mountain of bodies, both dogs and other animals. Shooting – way too slow and ineffective do you really want marksmen roaming the streets of your town taking pot-shots at anything they think is a valid target? Then trying to recover the bodies or chasing after wounded animals? You also have the problem of difficulties in identification and targeting: In densely populated areas, distinguishing stray dogs from owned but unlicensed or unleashed dogs is challenging. Culling could mistakenly target pets, leading to public outrage and legal repercussions. Logistical complexities: dealing with live or dead animals is not easy - Capturing large numbers of animals in urban environments is difficult and expensive. It requires specialized equipment, personnel, and infrastructure, creating a significant strain on resources. Once captured and killed the bodies pile up – this is thousands of extra carcasses that suddenly have to be disposed of – how? – There are estimated to be up to 8.5 million soi dogs in Thailand. This brings me to the public reaction – I know expats can be insensitive to the culture of the country they live in but I would have thought even the most insensitive have some appreciation of the Buddhist attitude to living things. There are ethical concerns and public opposition to be taken into consideration. : Culling often faces ethical critiques for its cruelty and animal welfare concerns. This opposition can hinder implementation and create community tension, reducing its effectiveness. In Bangkok a few years back, an ill-advised attempt at a cull triggered by a rabies scare brought about a massive outcry from both the public and scientists. One also needs to bear in mind that many people regard there Soi Dogs as an asset. Adopting a friendly pack in your street is seen as a good crime prevention tool and company of some of the people. Time and again it has been sown that the ethical and practical drawbacks of culling outweigh any potential temporary benefits. So advocates of culls - how do you think it would work? Can you find any evidence that it does? Address the practicalities - how would you kill and dispose entirely of between 3 and 9 million dogs – many of which have owners?

OK, I totally disagree with your idea that Soi dogs should be neutered/spayed. They should be eliminated for reasons I have said previously. OK stalker, That's not an argument - that is gansay - so now explain how your hypothesis will work

"Encounter" - thay sums up your attitude perfectly Your really take the biscuit - annoying stalker that you are - if you disagree with anything I've posted on Soi Dogs why don't you actually express it rather than just issue vague ad homs? I suspect you don't have an argument at all but as a stalker just want to gainsay anything I post

Another fatuous comment

So now i have a stalker....how sad you are! You ignorance appears to be boundless.