billsmart

Yes, we do have a different understanding of the word "share." Your one phrase, "we need to manage them" tells me all about you I need to know. You don't want to "share." You want to "dominate" and "manage" other forms of life, and the environment as whole, to provide you with comfort. You, IMO, have no regard for all the other life on this planet and are hiding your head in the sand regarding the long-term effect of that approach. You, and others like you, IMO, ARE the problem.

My course of action is described in the last section of my recent book on this subject (humankind's destruction of the Earth's environment, not soi dogs). It is told in an analogy called The Starfish Story. I'd encourage you to read the story here: The Starfish Story – Original Story by: Loren Eisley - Ataturk Society of America

The only long-term solution is to get rid of the humans.

I didn't mean to refer to YOU personally. WE means HUMANS, our species. WE, both Thai and foreigners, brought the majority of these dogs here. There are some native wild dogs, but most of them are gone now. I didn't bring any dogs with me to Thailand when I came either. My Thai wife and i have been looking after a large number of dogs ever I have lived on this property in the mountains, which has been about 15 years now. I think this number, 14, is now the most we've ever had. All our neighbors have dogs also, but usually no more than two or three. I am 76, so I don't know how I'll be two years from now when I'm 78, but I don't expect my attitude about the dogs will change.

I addressed this in my last response to you, so I won't repeat all that here. It is YOU that is taking a microsopic view of the problem, and it is through a microscope that is only viewed from a human perspective. Stray dogs are just one, tiny part of the problem Human's continuing destruction of the Earth's biosphere is the macroscopic neutral view of whole problem. We (humans) are a cancer on this planet. Stray dogs are just a small, almost imperceptible symtom of that.

No, I couldn't care for thousands of dogs. I've indicated a reasonable plan would be to relocate them to somewhere where they would not be considered a nuisance. The place to which they are relocated would provide them with shelter, feed them, and pay for any veterinary expenses they incur. The people who own or use property where the dogs defecate should be responsible for cleaning it up, if that's what they think should be done. Relocating them is a cop out? What do you call killing them, a solution? What you, and many others, fail to own up to is WE (humans) CREATED this "problem" by bringing all these dogs here in the first place, and also by expecting our living conditions to be free from all other forms of life. WE, in fact, are the problem, not these dogs, or the snakes, or the mice, or any other of the animals and plants that we should expect to SHARE this Earth with.

I don't live in a town. I live on about 16 rai in the mountains. I now have 14 dogs, all who were abandoned along the mountain road which runs past our property. These three dogs would be welcome here. Being popular is not my main concern.

First of all, I recommended they be relocated somewhere they would not be thought to be a problem. But more fundamental is the fact that killing something because you think it's a problem is just not an acceptable thing to do.

I'm a US citizen, and this news, of course, is horrible. However, whether the young girl is guilty of a crime depends on when she killed him. The news article, and none of the reports I've heard on TV, doesn't say. If she killed him while he was in the act of raping her, or immediately after he raped her, or even if he attempted to rape her or told her he was giving her to a "client," that would be considered self-defense and there would be no crime. If she killed him the next day, or several days after the rape, that could be considered aggravated manslaughter or justifiable homicide. If she killed him the next month or year, that could be considered premediated murder. But, as for the civil penalties, the $150,000, I don't know why that would ever be awarded in the case of the first two timelines.

Hopefully, the dogs will be relocated to somewhere they won't be thought to be a problem.