kwilco

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.

You don't seem to understand the principle of CNVR.

SDF do get funding from other sources and I believe the BMA have chipped in. SDF intend to have 10 full time mobile units operating in Bkk.

I've had to claim a couple of times and they settled over the phone in the hospital and I never paid a thing.

THis needs to be explained. It sounds like he did everything right -so which insurance company laid on the "complexities"???

What you say contradicts all the evidence The only place any kind of cull works is on small islands. The only possibility with dogs would be with extremely low dog populations. With Thailand and Bangkok this is not possible. Firstly there are practical considerations - take BKK - how would you kill the dogs? and where you put 300,000 dog corpses? (please don’t suggest poisoning) – You would also have to take on all the Buddhists in Thailand But the main reason is no cull can be 100% efficient - all that happens is the "gaps" created by a load of dead dogs. “Removing” these stray dogs creates a void in the local ecosystem, which is quickly filled by remaining dogs reproducing or new dogs entering the area from outside. Dogs can breed at a prodigious rate. By moving into the area, these new dogs actually accelerate the spread of diseases like rabies So the result of a cull is ineffective..... within weeks the situation the situation gets back to how it was. Despite what you seem to thing sustainable methods like Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return (CNVR) programs actually work and are working in Phuket and Bangkok. They may appear slow but they are EFFECTIVE and reduce the risk of zoonotic diseases In fact I doubt if you could find a single example of a successful dog cull anywhere in the world

In total, there are estimated to be as many as 8.5 million roaming dogs in Thailand. In BKK it is estimated to be between 100k and 300k Culling doesn’t work CNVR does (Catch Neuter Vaccinate and Return). This approach is the only proven, sustainable and humane method of reducing the stray animal population. In BKK the SDF has CNVR’d over half-a-million animals. Over the last 20 years they have treated over a million animals. Although some people have noticed the difference in Bangkok, many people are not aware of this. The only way a stray dog population can survive is if there is food and somewhere to breed – the lamentable refuse collection and disposal infrastructure is largely to blame and the idea of making merit by feeding stray dogs doesn’t help….as well as the abundance of derelict urban sites. A fully sterile population and limited food will eventually reduce the population size, Most studies suggest that 70% neutered is generally needed for a sustained population decline. This would vary according to circumstances. A similar figures apply to vaccination and the spread of rabies and other zoonotic diseases

The reason there are more cats visible is that since 2003 the Soi Dog has spayed/neutered and vaccinated tens of thousands of stray dogs and cats throughout Thailand, and, in 2023, surpassed the milestone of one million animals neutered

you've missed the point! They get spay/neuter surgery - so it doesn't matter if they bonk they are sterile

Suggesting culling indicated you don't understand the problem - culling doesn't work. In fact it just starts and endless battle itself.

THe best Expat can offer is an SUV soft roader. So I'm hoping I might have got a useful res[onse from someone in the know instead you seem to be inferring I don't know what I'm doing - i am fully aware where and how to rent a 2 wheeled drive vehicle - I want to rent a 4x4 which is a specialist thing - I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself whether or not I want a 4x4, and I resent the implication I don't know what I'm doing. If you have a good knowledge of 4x4s in Thailand then you might have some good advice to give but I don't think that is the case. THis is not about whether i need a 4x4 or not, it is a question about where I can rent one.

Expats re mostly 2 wheel drive and I doubt they have cover for dirt roads. I'm looking for a specialist or at least semi-specialist of an individual or 4x4 club

Snow? - Sounds like you're being facetious - I'm asking where I can rent one not disclosing what I want to do with it. Do you know where I can rent one?

Anyone know where I can rent a good 4x4 for about a month? Pattaya/ Chonburi / Rayong or even Bangkok area, preferably

BTW - apart from ad hom, what point are you trying to make?

Take a look t the past tests in various States in the USA, Belgium and several other countries in Europe and around the world - a driving test is a single one day event - in no way does it guarantee good driving for life. Many people one this site took really simple driving tests yet they feel their experience makes tham 'experts" in theoir eyes - in fact what they call "experience" is just the accumulation of bad habits. Even in UK you can have a licence for those who "can't change gear" - and that goes for the majority in the USA...

Yes – I’ve seen these new figures - but if you look up other sites you will see they say UK and Thailand are broadly the same. I must say I'm inclined to look at these figures with interest but you must bear in mind they are a one quote wonder and even if accurate don't support your hypotheses. - As you admit you don't read up on road safety - you seem just cherry pick your favourite one quote wonder. However it does highlight the poor gathering of stats in Thailand and the public's naive following of whatever nugget the media decides to throw up that suits them. You need to understand how confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance work. Even if th figures are accurate it doesn’t contradict my hypothesis. The figures you quote give a daily crash rate as 6 to 7 times higher than the UK, but a death rate 12 times higher which is still a massive discrepancy. As yet the criteria for these collisions in Thailand is not set - in fact according to the wording it may be no more than an estimate - in the UK the opposite is true as they have decades of accurate comparisons to make. THE next problem is how they are categorised - i.e. - death, serious injury minor injury or insurance claim. If for instance you look at the official figures for successive Songkhrans, you'll see the daily collision rate is around 350 in both countries. You use for the UK a secondary source when you could have used the National government source updated in 2023. For you Thai source you are using "As many as 939,713 road accidents were reported in Thailand last year, up 4.7% from 2021, the Thailand Road Accidents Data Centre for Road Safety Culture (ThaiRSC)" THis is from here - but at present it's in Thai only https://www.thairsc.com/eng/ This is a new single source from the relatively new institution which I can't cay is wrong but it needs to be reviewed - the UK source has been running for about 70 years. I certainly have a problem with the phrase "As many as " What people fail to understand is the basic difference between the UK and EU countries and Thailand is not the collisions themselves. it is the lack of protection offered by road safety systems in Thailand The problems are education, enforcement, engineering (road and vehicle) and importantly emergency and finally evaluation. Hence the huge discrepancy in statistics and people's ability to interpret what they say. Anyway it would appear your opinion is pretty worthless as you admit when it comes to being serious about road safety " I promise I won't be reading it?"[-RR]

If you believe that story.