stop feeding street dogs

[dick dasterdly]

5 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

there are only 2 positions on this.

DD - believes that the dog population isn't a problem and therefore they should be left in peace.

 

The other side is if you think there is a problem, there is only one solution and that is to restrict the food supply.

everything else is irrelevant.

 

DD's position however appears to have some flaws in it as the dog population is unlikely to remain static - as towns in Thailand continue to produce more and more rubbish so the dog population will grow and I'm fairly sure at some point it is going to be of a size that even he can't tolerate it. So I'd say that his stance on the matter is not actually practical or feasible in the long run.

Complete rubbish as I've already said I favour a sterilisation programme.

 

But feel free to continue to mis-represent my views....

[Airbagwill]

13 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Complete rubbish as I've already said I favour a sterilisation programme.

 

But feel free to continue to mis-represent my views....

which doesn't work...

Edited February 19, 2018 by Airbagwill

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

And there we go.

 

A few of us are honest enough to admit that we think dogs are more worthy than people - but of course this view will horrify the majority....

Thank you for your honesty I now know how to consider your posts and feelings. At the inferior to a dog level.

Edited February 19, 2018 by canuckamuck

[canuckamuck]

3 hours ago, vogie said:

Can't find the link to the american, but here's one just showing how ingratiating soi dogs can be. Please don't tell me that soi dogs are not a problem.

 

If that would have been one of my kids the streets would have covered in dog soup shortly after.

[RichardColeman]

To the falang man that feeds the dogs near the choc chai 1 and choc chai 8, after you feed them can you please ensure that you post a letter up saying that you will pay for any hospital bills that these mongrels cause by biting people. 

[Rimmer]

An inflammatory post has been removed

[JimmyJ]

9 hours ago, johng said:

That doesn't solve much....not the biting and chasing, the accidents, the noise , the poop and disease.

It reduces the population which helps solve the other things you've mentioned.

[Airbagwill]

46 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

It reduces the population which helps solve the other things you've mentioned.

CNVR - does NOT reduce the population even in a population where most of the dogs are registered and have owners. .

[jak2002003]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Your kids, if they are unlucky enough to be bitten, will be bitten by owned dogs....

OK .

 

You still have not answered my question........ which was......

 

I take it you never kill any animals or eat any meat if you are so opposed to not hurting or killing animals...

because you believe you and your / families / friends children are worth less than a dog.

 

 

Also,

 

You think dogs are more 'worthy' than people and dog nipping'/chasing situations - and biting children are all owned dogs and soi dogs don't do this kind of thing. 

 

You told me:   

'I'm trying hard not to say that I care less about your child, than I care about soi dogs'  

 

I don't understand this sentence  It does not make sense.  I presume you mean 'you could not care less about my, or any children, only about street dogs.  Which is rather disturbing.

 

You think the soi dog relies on volunteers that show compassion towards them to survive.  

 

Well no they don't.  The depend of messy humans, rubbish, throw away food, and crazy people throwing bags of food on the floor for them.

 

You think its acceptable that children are mauled and killed by streets dogs and say 'It's one of those things we have to somehow 'learn to live with'.' 

 

Then the worst of your statements is when you think the video of the child getting cornered and attacked by dogs was set up!!!!  

 

'Looks like a planned event with healthy attacking dogs, but irrelevant.'

 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by jak2002003

[mogandave]

OK .
 
You still have not answered my question........ which was......
 
I take it you never kill any animals or eat any meat if you are so opposed to not hurting or killing animals...
because you believe you and your / families / friends children are worth less than a dog.
 
 
Also,
 
You think dogs are more 'worthy' than people and dog nipping'/chasing situations - and biting children are all owned dogs and soi dogs don't do this kind of thing. 
 
You told me:   
'I'm trying hard not to say that I care less about your child, than I care about soi dogs'  
 
I don't understand this sentence  It does not make sense.  I presume you mean 'you could not care less about my, or any children, only about street dogs.  Which is rather disturbing.
 
You think the soi dog relies on volunteers that show compassion towards them to survive.  
 
Well no they don't.  The depend of messy humans, rubbish, throw away food, and crazy people throwing bags of food on the floor for them.
 
You think its acceptable that children are mauled and killed by streets dogs and say 'It's one of those things we have to somehow 'learn to live with'.' 
 
Then the worst of your statements is when you think the video of the child getting cornered and attacked by dogs was set up!!!!  
 
'Looks like a planned event with healthy attacking dogs, but irrelevant.'
 
 
 

 

So what was your question?

[jak2002003]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

So what was your question?

 

It was not for you.  It's for Dick D.

 

Question was..

 

I take it you never kill any animals or eat any meat if you are so opposed to not hurting or killing animals...?
 

[Rimmer]

A grammar/punctuation police post has been removed also a reply

[jamesmacleod]

The street dogs IMO will always be a problem in Thailand and it is not a problem which can be fixed easily! 

 

A taxi driver said he fed about 200 street dogs a day, and also had 40 injured dogs at his home, he was an old Thai man who thought this was the best way of caring for them!

 

Typically he said the dogs at his home had been involved in dog fights or accidents with cars!

 

For a 45 baht fare I paid him 1000 baht because of what he was doing, and while I thought he might of scammed me into believing in a fairy tale I witnessed him feeding a group of about 8 dogs near a bus stop a week later!

 

I don't know what is best for this problem in Thailand I must admit

[Airbagwill]

I can't think of a single "developed" country that has a dog problem comparable to Thailand's. If Thailand is to progress from middle income to those higher echelons, then part of that parcel is to address the dog problem. If they introduce an effective waste disposal policy and service then they are halfway there.

 

BTW - the Netherlands reckon it took 200 years to solve their dog problem

[wildewillie89]

How can they be introduced though? Many people pay what, 20 baht? Not long back the government wanted municipalities to increase this to 150 baht per month as the government is having to use so much money to cover sending rubbish to city landfills. Even asking the amount of 7x what people currently pay wouldn't have been enough. Some Mayors decided to increase the fee, but the majority didn't for the simple reason it would be political suicide. 

If given the choice, I think a fair percentage of the people would probably just prefer to have the dogs than pay more for more effective waste disposal. 

[opalred]

is it something to with belief on reincarnation

you can become back as a dog

my thoughts when i am reincarnated  i want to be a table cloth 

pulled off and layered  3 times a day 

[Airbagwill]

On 2/19/2018 at 7:47 PM, jak2002003 said:

You think the soi dog relies on volunteers that show compassion towards them to survive.  

 

Well no they don't.  The depend of messy humans, rubbish, throw away food, and crazy people throwing bags of food on the floor for them.

 

Absolutely!

[mogandave]

If soi dogs don't rely on people feeding them, stopping people from feeding them will do nothing to reduce the numbers. 

 

If stopping people from feeding them will do nothing to reduce the numbers, why all the hate for the people that enjoy feeding them? 

 

[Airbagwill]

11 hours ago, wildewillie89 said:

How can they be introduced though? Many people pay what, 20 baht? Not long back the government wanted municipalities to increase this to 150 baht per month as the government is having to use so much money to cover sending rubbish to city landfills. Even asking the amount of 7x what people currently pay wouldn't have been enough. Some Mayors decided to increase the fee, but the majority didn't for the simple reason it would be political suicide. 

If given the choice, I think a fair percentage of the people would probably just prefer to have the dogs than pay more for more effective waste disposal. 

You assume that garbage disposal will be a direct tax/fee on householders.

What is needed is a disposal system that he's from source to dump

Producers whether domestic or commercial need to have suitable bins and collection, but also the local authorities need to ensure that after regular collection the garbage is placed in dumps that are environmentally friendly and don't encourage scavenging by dogs and other animals.

This is standards any clean city around the world.

It also has financial benefits in both cleanliness and health.

How they found this is up to the city itself....after the initial investment the running costs are no more than anything they have now.

It really isn't a matter of funds so much as a matter of attitude. Once in place the benefits to locals business health and tourism will pay for it.

[mogandave]

3 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

You assume that garbage disposal will be a direct tax/fee on householders.

What is needed is a disposal system that he's from source to dump

Producers whether domestic or commercial need to have suitable bins and collection, but also the local authorities need to ensure that after regular collection the garbage is placed in dumps that are environmentally friendly and don't encourage scavenging by dogs and other animals.

This is standards any clean city around the world.

It also has financial benefits in both cleanliness and health.

How they found this is up to the city itself....after the initial investment the running costs are no more than anything they have now.

It really isn't a matter of funds so much as a matter of attitude. Once in place the benefits to locals business health and tourism will pay for it.

 

The only way governments get money is from the people. 

[Airbagwill]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

If soi dogs don't rely on people feeding them, stopping people from feeding them will do nothing to reduce the numbers. 

 

If stopping people from feeding them will do nothing to reduce the numbers, why all the hate for the people that enjoy feeding them? 

 

I think you don't really understand the processes.

What is your view on this? 

What do you think, if anything, should be done?

 

 

Feeding the dogs is one of several factors that promotes the dog population.

It attracts dogs to an area....once in that area they will also scavenge. The amount of food available is directly related to the number of dogs in an area.

Feeding the dogs also represents an attitude to Soi dogs that needs to be changed if the problem is ever going to be addressed.

PS - Are you aware of the attempted culls in Bangkok and the publication?

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, Airbagwill said:

I think you don't really understand the processes.

What is your view on this? 

What do you think, if anything, should be done?

 

 

Feeding the dogs is one of several factors that promotes the dog population.

It attracts dogs to an area....once in that area they will also scavenge. The amount of food available is directly related to the number of dogs in an area.

Feeding the dogs also represents an attitude to Soi dogs that needs to be changed if the problem is ever going to be addressed.

PS - Are you aware of the attempted culls in Bangkok and the publication?

 

Publication? 

[Airbagwill]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Publication? 

I see you call for a "publication" you actually fail to specify one which point.......- It is a familiar scenario; bereft of any real argument they ask for references - that isn't an argument. do you realise that? If you doubt an argument, check it for yourself and then come up with your considered opinion.

 

As I said earlier if you want to take part in an argument rather than just heckle from the sidelines, take some time and inform yourself first before you dive in and reveal your shortcomings on the matter.

 

As for the matter your question, you could have saved your breath as the reference has already been given in an earlier post. - the WHO - it's a pity you clearly haven't read or understood the other posts yet still think you are in a position of form a valid argument..... it reflects more on yourself than anything else.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Airbagwill

[dick dasterdly]

On 2/19/2018 at 5:22 PM, dick dasterdly said:

Complete rubbish as I've already said I favour a sterilisation programme.

 

But feel free to continue to mis-represent my views....

 

On 2/19/2018 at 7:47 PM, jak2002003 said:

OK .

 

You still have not answered my question........ which was......

 

I take it you never kill any animals or eat any meat if you are so opposed to not hurting or killing animals...

because you believe you and your / families / friends children are worth less than a dog.

 

 

Also,

 

You think dogs are more 'worthy' than people and dog nipping'/chasing situations - and biting children are all owned dogs and soi dogs don't do this kind of thing. 

 

You told me:   

'I'm trying hard not to say that I care less about your child, than I care about soi dogs'  

 

I don't understand this sentence  It does not make sense.  I presume you mean 'you could not care less about my, or any children, only about street dogs.  Which is rather disturbing.

 

You think the soi dog relies on volunteers that show compassion towards them to survive.  

 

Well no they don't.  The depend of messy humans, rubbish, throw away food, and crazy people throwing bags of food on the floor for them.

 

You think its acceptable that children are mauled and killed by streets dogs and say 'It's one of those things we have to somehow 'learn to live with'.' 

 

Then the worst of your statements is when you think the video of the child getting cornered and attacked by dogs was set up!!!!  

 

'Looks like a planned event with healthy attacking dogs, but irrelevant.'

 

 

 

 

I see you took my comment to "feel free to continue to mis-represent my views" at face-value !

 

At the end of the day, I'm not about to change any-ones' opinion on soi dogs, in the same way that no-one is going to change my opinion.  Some people have compassion for all suffering, whilst others conserve their compassion towards humans.

 

Having said this, this thread caused me to become extremely bad-tempered (not to mention pissed....) on Monday - for which I apologise.

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, Airbagwill said:

I see you call for a "publication" you actually fail to specify one which point.......- It is a familiar scenario; bereft of any real argument they ask for references - that isn't an argument. do you realise that? If you doubt an argument, check it for yourself and then come up with your considered opinion.

 

As I said earlier if you want to take part in an argument rather than just heckle from the sidelines, take some time and inform yourself first before you dive in and reveal your shortcomings on the matter.

 

As for the matter your question, you could have saved your breath as the reference has already been given in an earlier post. - the WHO - it's a pity you clearly haven't read or understood the other posts yet still think you are in a position of form a valid argument..... it reflects more on yourself than anything else.

 

I'm not calling for a publication, I just don't know what publication you were referring to when you asked:

 

"PS - Are you aware of the attempted culls in Bangkok and the publication?"

 

 

[wildewillie89]

6 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

You assume that garbage disposal will be a direct tax/fee on householders.

What is needed is a disposal system that he's from source to dump

Producers whether domestic or commercial need to have suitable bins and collection, but also the local authorities need to ensure that after regular collection the garbage is placed in dumps that are environmentally friendly and don't encourage scavenging by dogs and other animals.

This is standards any clean city around the world.

It also has financial benefits in both cleanliness and health.

How they found this is up to the city itself....after the initial investment the running costs are no more than anything they have now.

It really isn't a matter of funds so much as a matter of attitude. Once in place the benefits to locals business health and tourism will pay for it.

For starters, the direction the ministry wants to now go is away from bins. My workplace have removed all their bins already as the municipality decided to to go with the government. Where I live decided to go against what the government wanted and kept their bins (every municipality had the choice).

The environmentally friendly ways are expensive and need more rubbish than provinces actually have. I think a few provinces around us looked into getting one of those incinerators (that create energy) and then realised the amount of rubbish needed wasn't possible. So landfill remained the better option. 

Where is the money coming from for these initial investments, and what are the actual investments that are dog proof? Yes, the bigger municipalities own things like hotels etc, however the smaller municipalities still need to pay those big municipalities to use their garbage disposal system. Like I said, even now if a municipality charged 7x what they currently do it doesn't even break even for even a dog friendly landfill system. Let alone a system that is protected from dogs. Smaller municipalities (majority of the country) without things like hotels or tax from businesses have no hope.

Garbage disposal therefore does need to be a fee on the household, which will inevitably mean the result will be dogs are a lesser problem than the fee. Garbage was the biggest issue last year and this year for municipalities due to strain on the budget it is causing, which is why the push to increase the fee was put forward. 

Edited February 21, 2018 by wildewillie89

[Airbagwill]

45 minutes ago, wildewillie89 said:

For starters, the direction the ministry wants to now go is away from bins. My workplace have removed all their bins already as the municipality decided to to go with the government. Where I live decided to go against what the government wanted and kept their bins (every municipality had the choice).

The environmentally friendly ways are expensive and need more rubbish than provinces actually have. I think a few provinces around us looked into getting one of those incinerators (that create energy) and then realised the amount of rubbish needed wasn't possible. So landfill remained the better option. 

Where is the money coming from for these initial investments, and what are the actual investments that are dog proof? Yes, the bigger municipalities own things like hotels etc, however the smaller municipalities still need to pay those big municipalities to use their garbage disposal system. Like I said, even now if a municipality charged 7x what they currently do it doesn't even break even for even a dog friendly landfill system. Let alone a system that is protected from dogs. Smaller municipalities (majority of the country) without things like hotels or tax from businesses have no hope.

Garbage disposal therefore does need to be a fee on the household, which will inevitably mean the result will be dogs are a lesser problem than the fee. Garbage was the biggest issue last year and this year for municipalities due to strain on the budget it is causing, which is why the push to increase the fee was put forward. 

Mostly nonsense - so you are saying that the dog problem can't be solved because Thailand, unlike other countries can't afford it?

 

You have tried to dichotomise rubbish disposal and made assumptions about how the whole thing should b financed.

which "ministry: are you talking about and what kind of bins?

As for your negative views on costing they are mostly ill-founded......firstly if the government can afford roads railways utilities they can have a national policy.

disposing of garbage does not specifically require an incinerator or a specific amount and if the dog problem was nationalise then economies of scale would be available.

Whatever way the rubbish is disposed of it CAN be done it ways that it is inaccessible to dogs and does not get dispersed from within the confines of where it is put......every European country has achieved that. It doesn't require a revolutionary method of garbage collection it just requires that it is done properly

To see the problem of dogs village by village is a blinkered approach, it needs a national change. If one region doesn't cooperate then the next region will be invaded by their dogs and all their efforts will have been wasted.

 

Environmentally friendly waste disposal systems are not necessarily expensive either as they produce usable bi-products such as energy or even recycled materials and fertilisers.

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by Airbagwill

[Airbagwill]

49 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I'm not calling for a publication, I just don't know what publication you were referring to when you asked:

 

"PS - Are you aware of the attempted culls in Bangkok and the publication?"

 

 

i think that even you can google that hole in your knowledge.

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

i think that even you can google that hole in your knowledge.

 

That's what I thought

[mogandave]

Dude has a fitting name...