kwilco

How about some up to date info on Savannakhet?

So is there an update? What is the situation as of now? (13/01/24) PS - What is HCMC?

unlike people like you who are diagnosed every day?

THere is a rather dim group of people on this thread who try to be "tough" and dispassionate by suggesting they would either eat dog or that all meat is the same - they are basically taking a very facile approach to the topic and revealing how stupid they themselves really are

THe problem with tourism in Thailand is that for some inexplicable reason people think they should stare at animals - they wouldn't think of doing it at home. ....and Thailand businessmen are keen to seize the opportunity to set up these displays/attractions and don't have to worry about any strict laws on animal welfare or their enforcement. THailand still has a large "virgin" eco-system and it is very important to the rest of the country - it provides water regulateds climate and can be a tourist resource. THe obsession with putting animals in cages so we can look at them is destroying all that and needs to be ended. As for animals in the wild in Thailand, the National parks are so badly funded they are incapable of managing them properly and the employees are wide open to corruption. Te first thing the Thai government should do is embark upon a policy of closing down all these zoos or so-called sanctuaries, rescues, shelters safari prks or whatever they choose to call themselves and set about a national program to deal with all the bused animals both in captivity and in the wild - they can still attract tourism, but the right kind, noty the moronic gawpers that finance these horrendous places.

why do you think you have the right to stare at wild animals?

If you look at the history of this and other wildlife attractions in Thailand it is pretty clear they need either to be shut down or totally re-built - their base philosophies towards wildlfe and animal welfare are rotten to the core.

I'd say it's quite the opposite as any rules you see written down can be totally if=gnored by any immigration official - I don;t think that's ""obvious" is it?

OK - which embassy has the right information?

mmmmm either this isn't true or ywe are missing something - what passport are you using? Are you entering by land?

the final decision on entry is down to the immigration office in front of you.

From the royal Thai Embassy London "Nationals of the United Kingdom and over 40 other countries are eligible to travel to Thailand, for tourism purpose, with the exemption of visa and are permitted to stay in Thailand for a period of not exceeding 30 days. Therefore, you do not need a visa. However, please make sure that you are in possession of a passport valid for at least 6 months, a round-trip air ticket, and adequate finances equivalent to at least 20,000 Baht (450 pounds) per person or 40,000 Baht (900 pounds) per family. Otherwise, you maybe inconvenienced upon entry into the country. Furthermore, foreigners who enter Thailand under this Tourist Visa Exemption Scheme may re-enter and stay in Thailand for a cumulative duration of stay of not exceeding 90 days within any 6-month period from the date of first entry." - this makes no mention of entry by air or land anyomre

largely because thy aren't hygienically or humanely frmed and they are not disease or parasite free. Have yo seen how they are prepared for transport? THeir legs are broken behind their backs - this means thy can't run off. Another problem with dogs is that unlike herd/flock animals they aren't easy to manage or a productive source of protein. THe reasons for eating them are usually the same mumbo-jumbo that Chinese medicine is composed of.

So you would eat a Soi dog?

people think thwy are being clever by rying to imply there is no difference - really they are just too daft to understand why we eat certain animals and not others - see my earlier post. currently the eating of "exotic species is doing untold hram to the environment and a lot is also damaging to health. - quite appart from the humane aspects -

Again, what is your point?

I don't see your point.

A fallacous appeal to antiquity.... hunting is obsolete in most modern society...it is no longer done as an essential source of protein, it is done for pleasure

Eating of animals is in most cultures a farmed source of protein. You put in a food themat humans don't find easy to eat and produce protein for humans .... you also get other products...it the case of rabbits we get fur as well as meat.. Dogs in most cultures were not bred for meat and do not fall into the usual protein cycle either...dogs have many uses but not producing protein efficiently. There is in most society a culture of eating "exotic" animals. These are not eaten as an essential source of protein but are consumed out of a misguided belief in some archaic cultural benefit e g. medical health animism or virility etc... most of these practices are based on nothing

Apparently it's become very unpopular in Korea.

I'm afraid some do.

"hunter Restaurnats are very common in Thailand and a lot of the stuff they have on the menu is highly damaging to conservation efforts in Thailand's national parks.

in a roundabout way you make the point. The laws of THailand are very inconsistantly enforced and it i=would be more effective if the genaral public start to frown upon the prctice rather than just making it illegal. Nakhon Sakon is/was famous for dog meat - it is vb;eived to have quasi-medical properties - I think it's safe to say that in Thailand it would take more than a law to put a stop to it.

Certain breeds of dogs were bred for the table

Firstly as humans most of th animals we eat for meat are farmed vegetarians - they are away of changing grass and other inedible crops into protiene. Dogs have a diet that makes them inappropriate for human consumption. But when eaten in places like Thailand and Korea, they are not properly farmed and often just caught offf the road - they don't follow hygienic food production methods and th habit of cooking them live is rather inhumane