Animal Cruelty law and soi dogs

[TheBrain]

I want to show here translation of animal cruelty law section 20, which states what is not considered as a cruelty.

Section 21   Actions are as follows. No animal cruelty under Section 20

(1) the killing of animals for use as food;   Only pets for food.

(2) slaughtering under the law governing the slaughtering and distribution of meat;

(3) the killing of animals for the control of epidemics under the law on animal epidemics;

(4) slaughtering in the event that the veterinarian considers that the animal is diseased or injured and can not heal or cure it without suffering.

(5) the killing of animals by ritual or religious beliefs;

(6) killing animals in case of necessity to prevent harm to human or animal life or body; Or prevent damage to property.

(7) Any action on the animal body, which the nature of the profession of veterinarian by profession a veterinary or who are exempt from the act without having registered and licensed as a professional. veterinarians from the Veterinary Medical Council under the veterinary profession.

(8) cut his tail feathers, tusks or with reasonable cause and not harmful to animals or the lives of animals.

(9) the availability of animal fighting, according to local tradition.

(10) any other action that is required by law to be made specifically.

(11) Any other action prescribed by the Minister, with the approval of the Board.

 

So... according to this law there are legal ways to kill soi dogs not being a part of animal cruelty charge. For example killing soi dog as a religious ritual is ok according to this law. Also killing soi dog  as control of epidemics is also OK, cause 80% of soi dogs have rabbies. Killing soi dog to prevent damage to property is ok too. They did no specified what type of animal you can eat, so you can legally kill and eat soi dog.

 

My question is if this law legally allow killing soig dogs especially to control epidemic  and to eat according to what document g-ment prosecute killing dogs for eat and do not dispose soi dogs for the epidemic control?

[Lamkyong]

go ahead and test it

[Aditi Sharma]

It must be made compulsory for vets to adopt street dogs, domesticate them and then release them back into the streets or give up for adoption. 

[TheBrain]

20 minutes ago, Lamkyong said:

go ahead and test it

woman and children first:)

[sawadee1947]

even you are right I have my doubts you would be able to go away with your explanations and without fine.

I WISH people would do it as there are too many soi dogs around. Thaksin used dog hunter to solve this problem......well, well good old times.....

[Orton Rd]

57 minutes ago, TheBrain said:

(1) the killing of animals for use as food;   Only pets for food.

(2) slaughtering under the law governing the slaughtering and distribution of meat

Got that far both cruel and unnecessary 

[TerryLH]

5 hours ago, TheBrain said:

Also killing soi dog  as control of epidemics is also OK, cause 80% of soi dogs have rabbies.

You lose credibility when you make numbers up.

[wildewillie89]

I think you will find you have probably over simplified it. I'm of the belief the government vet in the area has to approve these things and then other sections within the public health ministry can carry them out (which almost never happens with some governments to please do-gooders). If your every day Joe decides to kill a dog then they will be punished, like we all know they are numerous times every day. 

 

And where the hell did 80% rabies come from?

Edited October 21, 2017 by wildewillie89

[TheBrain]

5 hours ago, wildewillie89 said:

I think you will find you have probably over simplified it. I'm of the belief the government vet in the area has to approve these things and then other sections within the public health ministry can carry them out (which almost never happens with some governments to please do-gooders). If your every day Joe decides to kill a dog then they will be punished, like we all know they are numerous times every day. 

 

And where the hell did 80% rabies come from?

Government does not do anything about removing street dogs from the street and at the same time it prosecutes people who do that themselves, even thought we have right to kill stray dogs in case of self defense or to prevent decease to spread. This is disgusting!!!

 

 I live near pack of dangerous and big stray dogs. No police no locale authorities did not do anything to remove them, no matter how many times i complained. I suspect i will have serious problems with law if i go and kill these dogs my self,  even thought i can do it according to law. If stray dogs with no owner stay near my home, they bitten my small dog few times, i have full right to kill them all.

[wildewillie89]

5 hours ago, TheBrain said:

Government does not do anything about removing street dogs from the street and at the same time it prosecutes people who do that themselves, even thought we have right to kill stray dogs in case of self defense or to prevent decease to spread. This is disgusting!!!

 

 I live near pack of dangerous and big stray dogs. No police no locale authorities did not do anything to remove them, no matter how many times i complained. I suspect i will have serious problems with law if i go and kill these dogs my self,  even thought i can do it according to law. If stray dogs with no owner stay near my home, they bitten my small dog few times, i have full right to kill them all.

Like with everything, different governments have different focuses. Your post may well be right, however, different government will tell vets not to act and some will tell them to act. In recent times, a lot of restrictions have been put on local officials not to do anything re dogs. The local offices are just as pissed off as us as they cop complaints all day but are seriously restricted in what they can do. So they are forced to illegally sack a dog and send it to a neighbouring district at night.

 

Acting in self defence is, of course, a little bit different. But most people will be able to prevent a fear aggressive attack without killing - as the motive is in fact fear 99% of the time so it's easy to prevent/stop.

 

Stopping the spread of disease (rabies), will not cut it. You say 80%, where did you get that? My area was 0% last time it was checked out - so that reasoning obviously doesn't justify killing. Local officials vaccinate every stray they can find every year to address disease. Not what I would do, but will be their argument. 

 

I agree some aspects of what you posted should be used, however, it is a lot more complicated in reality than you seem to think. 

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by wildewillie89

[barrywhite]

23 minutes ago, wildewillie89 said:

Like with everything, different governments have different focuses. Your post may well be right, however, different government will tell vets not to act and some will tell them to act. In recent times, a lot of restrictions have been put on local officials not to do anything re dogs. The local offices are just as pissed off as us as they cop complaints all day but are seriously restricted in what they can do. So they are forced to illegally sack a dog and send it to a neighbouring district at night.

 

Acting in self defence is, of course, a little bit different. But most people will be able to prevent a fear aggressive attack without killing - as the motive is in fact fear 99% of the time so it's easy to prevent/stop.

 

Stopping the spread of disease (rabies), will not cut it. You say 80%, where did you get that? My area was 0% last time it was checked out - so that reasoning obviously doesn't justify killing. Local officials vaccinate every stray they can find every year to address disease. Not what I would do, but will be their argument. 

 

I agree some aspects of what you posted should be used, however, it is a lot more complicated in reality than you seem to think. 

 

It's  not really complicated at all, it's made complicated by moronic stupidity, the Thais feign affection for the dogs but the reality, which can be seen daily, are many disease ridden animals given the absolute minimum of "real" care.

[wildewillie89]

6 minutes ago, barrywhite said:

It's  not really complicated at all, it's made complicated by moronic stupidity, the Thais feign affection for the dogs but the reality, which can be seen daily, are many disease ridden animals given the absolute minimum of "real" care.

To us it may not be that complicated, but to the country it is. You have people who have the exact same beliefs as us of what should be done. But then you have a big section of do-gooders who have an interpretation of Buddhism, that yes, they don't even follow themselves, who campaign to put these restrictions in. 

[barrywhite]

2 hours ago, wildewillie89 said:

To us it may not be that complicated, but to the country it is. You have people who have the exact same beliefs as us of what should be done. But then you have a big section of do-gooders who have an interpretation of Buddhism, that yes, they don't even follow themselves, who campaign to put these restrictions in. 

As I said "moronic stupidity"

[TheBrain]

12 hours ago, wildewillie89 said:

To us it may not be that complicated, but to the country it is. You have people who have the exact same beliefs as us of what should be done. But then you have a big section of do-gooders who have an interpretation of Buddhism, that yes, they don't even follow themselves, who campaign to put these restrictions in. 

Soi dog issue has no connection to religion. Japan and Korea are Buddhist too, but they eat dogs and dispose them in gaz chambers. I tend to think some one in goverment or parliament like to feed soy dogs and let them roam streets, and this person just do not care about everything else.

Edited October 22, 2017 by TheBrain

[dbrenn]

Soi dogs are a menace, especially at night. I don't blame the OP for wanting rid of them.

[TheBrain]

1 minute ago, dbrenn said:

Soi dogs are a menace, especially at night. I don't blame the OP for wanting rid of them.

When i was living in Pattaya before i had no serious issues with soi dogs, just small annoyance. When i moved in rural Thailand it became a serious issue. Day time they sleep in jungles or under cars, sometimes go to drink water from our swimming pool. Night time they become active and go hunting in big pack. As a farang i cannot carry gun or knife here, walking to tesco lotus with big rake is just over-complicated.

[TheBrain]

Recently i searched internet and found story about thai policeman. With his pregnant wife he was encircled and attacked with 20 soi dogs, he shot one dog and injured one. This was 100% self defense. Later he was charged for animal cruelty.  Injured dog, but not his pregnant wife, was put to hospital.

 

Another story is still available in youtube, pitbull is tearing apart another dog in public place. Police stay near dog fight and do no do anything at all, but they have guns. Some people tried to hit pitbull and use gas on it. After pitbull tired it just go away terrorizing people on street. 

 

I cannot tolerate this shit anymore. We need to identify people who is behind this dog policies here and let our governments to know, so they can put sanctions on them for violation human rights and supporting dog terrorism!

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by TheBrain

[TheBrain]

There is no difference between sending money to ISIS or feeding soi dogs, all that people are terrorist supporters. I also need to notice, soy dogs killed and severely injured way more people and children then jihadists.

[wildewillie89]

10 hours ago, TheBrain said:

Soi dog issue has no connection to religion. Japan and Korea are Buddhist too, but they eat dogs and dispose them in gaz chambers. I tend to think some one in goverment or parliament like to feed soy dogs and let them roam streets, and this person just do not care about everything else.

Bit of a stretch. Thai is over 90% Buddhist, where as the counties you mention are 30% and 15%. Not really comparable. 

 

There is no big conspiracy about the issue, a group of Buddhist animal lovers campaigned against things like the dog trucks etc, with good intentions, but just no understanding of future ramifications.

 

For the third time, where is the 80% rabies figure from? It is hard to believe any example you post if you cannot substantiate that claim. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by wildewillie89

[robblok]

15 hours ago, TheBrain said:

Recently i searched internet and found story about thai policeman. With his pregnant wife he was encircled and attacked with 20 soi dogs, he shot one dog and injured one. This was 100% self defense. Later he was charged for animal cruelty.  Injured dog, but not his pregnant wife, was put to hospital.

 

Another story is still available in youtube, pitbull is tearing apart another dog in public place. Police stay near dog fight and do no do anything at all, but they have guns. Some people tried to hit pitbull and use gas on it. After pitbull tired it just go away terrorizing people on street. 

 

I cannot tolerate this shit anymore. We need to identify people who is behind this dog policies here and let our governments to know, so they can put sanctions on them for violation human rights and supporting dog terrorism!

 

I have had my laugh of the day.. thanks funny post. 

 

Keep on dreaming. 

[chrisinth]

On 10/22/2017 at 6:58 PM, TheBrain said:

I cannot tolerate this shit anymore. We need to identify people who is behind this dog policies here and let our governments to know, so they can put sanctions on them for violation human rights and supporting dog terrorism!

I can only assume by this that this whole thread is a wind-up. Either that or you need some meds for the dramatics.

[chrisinth]

On 10/22/2017 at 7:06 PM, TheBrain said:

There is no difference between sending money to ISIS or feeding soi dogs, all that people are terrorist supporters. I also need to notice, soy dogs killed and severely injured way more people and children then jihadists.

What is wrong with you? That isn't even funny.

[TheBrain]

1 hour ago, chrisinth said:

What is wrong with you? That isn't even funny.

Not funny when owners let theirs dogs go outside property without handle or even let big dogs go outside alone terrorizing locals and no one takes responsibility when dog bites someone. I like how they manage dogs in UK:

1. Not even a single stray  dog on streets alone

2. If dog bite someone owner go to jail for up to 6 years

3 there is a list of banned dogs like pitbull and other killers

4 every dog is chipped and can be traced

5 they catch every stray dog and put in shelter if no one claim it they dispose it.

6 they do fine people for feeding stray dogs, for letting dog put shit in public places. They can fine dog owner up to 1 million baht if dog attacked someone and owner did not do anything but just stay look and smile.

 

I know Thailand is not UK, but this is good example of properly designed dog law, which can be implemented here too.

Edited October 24, 2017 by TheBrain

[TheBrain]

1 hour ago, chrisinth said:

I can only assume by this that this whole thread is a wind-up. Either that or you need some meds for the dramatics.

I think you need meds. I do not like to live near pack of stray dogs and i need a legal solution. With the current implementation of animal cruelty law many people do not feel comfortable and safe due to ridiculous amounts of stray dogs on streets. Also many dogs owners let theirs dogs to roam streets alone. This is not a compromise at all. Policies like this always greatly increase dog poisoning. As a result dog owners afraid theirs dogs to be poisoned and they will be poisoned and at the same time no one feel safe  protected from dog attacks. I do not like situation like that.

[jak2002003]

On ‎23‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:49 AM, wildewillie89 said:

Bit of a stretch. Thai is over 90% Buddhist, where as the counties you mention are 30% and 15%. Not really comparable. 

 

There is no big conspiracy about the issue, a group of Buddhist animal lovers campaigned against things like the dog trucks etc, with good intentions, but just no understanding of future ramifications.

 

For the third time, where is the 80% rabies figure from? It is hard to believe any example you post if you cannot substantiate that claim. 

Yet it can't be a religions thing... as most Thai people, even though they say they are Buddhist, all eat meat... so why not eat dog?

 

When I need to find a vegetarian restaurant they are very hard to find outside the city, and usually very small and few customers.  In the city there are very limited choices.

 

I think they like the dogs so much because the late king also loved dogs, and people got the idea from there.

 

Seems like from the laws the OP posted people could be as cruel as they like to any animal, so long as they just said it was for religious reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wildewillie89]

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

Yet it can't be a religions thing... as most Thai people, even though they say they are Buddhist, all eat meat... so why not eat dog?

 

When I need to find a vegetarian restaurant they are very hard to find outside the city, and usually very small and few customers.  In the city there are very limited choices.

 

I think they like the dogs so much because the late king also loved dogs, and people got the idea from there.

 

Seems like from the laws the OP posted people could be as cruel as they like to any animal, so long as they just said it was for religious reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thai will pick and choose aspects of religion when it suits them. Just like every religious person does. 

 

Before the trucks were out in force, and a lot of Buddhists didn't care. But a lot did care too so they put a stop to it and toughened the laws re cruelty. Maybe they didn't have the money to reach their religious goals so used the dogs lol, who knows? But religion was a justification.

 

The OPs laws may well be there, I haven't looked them up. But, yes, they seem to offer an incredible amount of scope. What he doesn't realise is that each department has many different laws that may override such laws, or that usually an official has to pass off on these actions. So a normal person may not fit into these laws sometimes and thus be punished by police. 

 

I think the vast majority of Thai are just not bothered by the dogs as they kick them away. A lot aren't educated enough to understand their own religion, or even how to make complaints. 

 

Many Thai seem to purely see dogs as guard dogs, not companions, I wouldn't say many actually like or love dogs. I also think they just have bigger issues to worry about within their own family context. That's what separates first and third world, we can afford to care for our animals. 

[MrJerome]

Very dangerous <deleted> these soi dogs. It is legal to kill them when a situation is threatening. My baby plays out on the streets too and too many times there has been a near accident that could seriously harm her. These are not cute smal pekinese dogs, nope they are some cross breed and look seriously big and strong. i have no issues myself with killing them, althoug i am a dog lover..Just love my baby a lot more....and if no one want to take resposibility in this country , what can a man do.  The so called dog loving Thai..yeah right.