Humans first - soi dogs second! Thais now advocating "the final solution"

[webfact]

Humans first - soi dogs second! Thais now advocating "the final solution"

 

 

Culling stray dogs and cats is gaining serious traction in Thai society as the rabies outbreak continues.

 

Thai media Sanook reported that several key social media sites were full of comment from Thais calling for what is being termed the final solution or "Set Zero" in the Thai language.

 

People are fed up with animals coming first and humans second.

 

They said that comment was rife on sites such as "Drama-Addict" and "Sombat Bunngam Anong" that culling should happen.

 

Many people did not think that all stray animals should be killed - but plenty of strays warranted that fate to protect people from infection by the deadly disease. Government agencies and those in the private sector must come to a culling compromise.

 

But the majority are in agreement that some form of cull is well overdue.

 

Many just said that the job needed to be done, so long as there was no unnecessary cruelty, said Sanook.

 

People were also calling on those who feed and water the strays - then just go home and leave them to bite people - to stop doing that.

 

It was not making merit but exacerbating the situation.

 

Such comments indicate severe public concern amid the rabies outbreak that is a departure from Buddhist laissez-faire regarding the situation of strays in Thailand.

 

Several people have died from rabies this year as infected animals have been found in more than 50 provinces.

 

Source: Sanook

 

-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2018-03-15

[djayz]

Although I love animals, particularly dogs, I think a cull is long over due. There are simply too many of the muts roaming the streets barking and scaring people.

[Darcula]

8 minutes ago, webfact said:

a departure from Buddhist laissez-faire

 

Origins of this movement here have been traced back to the year 543 BC.

[harada]

I think I'll be avoiding burger joints for a while. 

[overherebc]

37 minutes ago, djayz said:

Although I love animals, particularly dogs, I think a cull is long over due. There are simply too many of the muts roaming the streets barking and scaring people.

My two are up to date with injections and although I would love to walk them outside I just feel now I can't. Luckily we have a big garden walled off and they have their own space to run around in.

Outside we have a few dogs that were thrown/let out when they stopped being cute puppies.

Both are big friendly dogs but if I took them outside they would have no problem 'sorting' any  loose dog that would be stupid enough to have a go. This would give me two problems.

1. What infections would they get and what would that cost me for vet bills.

2.  Some irrate 'owner' trying to claim for vet bills for 'their' dog, if it survived.

[jvs]

Yes about time they are changing their mind about this,if you want to make merrit there are plenty of people in need.

[Misterwhisper]

I do see some sense in removing strays that are obviously sick and thus pose a danger to humans or which are aggressive and attack passers-by,.

 

Nevertheless, I have always greatly disliked the word "to cull" in this context, because to me it seems like a cowardly expression that is not accurately describing what is actually happening. We KILL those strays, don't we? So why do people shy away from using that word? Is it too uncomfortable? Does it trigger their conscience? Does it make them too aware that something bad is inflicted on these creatures?

 

When Thailand was afflicted by the avian flu outbreak almost two decades ago, I vividly recall media reports how hundreds of thousands of chickens were "culled". On occasion the reports were of course illustrated by all to graphical pictures that clearly showed us what that "culling" really involved: burying these hundreds of thousands of fowl ALIVE in huge pits. In my opinion that was not "culling" but pure cruel savagery as there surely would have been several options for killing these condemned animals more mercifully and humanely.

 

Yes, by all means, let's remove dangerous or infected soi dogs from our streets. But let's be clear about it that they are being killed, not "culled". And if we kill them, it should be done in a manner that causes the animals as little suffering as possible. After all, the point is not to punish the animals for merely living. It's not their fault that they got infected with rabies. It's not their fault that they were abandoned by their irresponsible former human owners and turned into aggressive beasts fending for themselves on the streets. It's not their fault that they were born as dogs.          

[cornishcarlos]

2 minutes ago, Misterwhisper said:

So why do people shy away from using that word?

 

Because "cull" is the correct verb to use !!!

 

Definition  1.reduce the population of (a wild animal) by selective slaughter.

[Misterwhisper]

9 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

Because "cull" is the correct verb to use !!!

 

Definition  1.reduce the population of (a wild animal) by selective slaughter.

Thanks for the clarification. I dislike the word even more now for its obnoxious definition.

[SABloke]

Just now, Misterwhisper said:

Nevertheless, I have always greatly disliked the word "to cull" in this context, because to me it seems like a cowardly expression that is not accurately describing what is actually happening. We KILL those strays, don't we? So why do people shy away from using that word? Is it too uncomfortable? Does it trigger their conscience? Does it make them too aware that something bad is inflicted on these creatures?

Do you dislike to word slaughter for the same reason?

 

Yes, we kill animals in a cull, but the English language is great in that a word can be very specific and give the reader/listener a lot of information instantly without the need to clarify. I can say a thing is 'big', 'huge',or 'gigantic' rather than having to say, 'big', 'very big', 'very very big'. Kill is a very vague term.

 

kill: cause the death of (a person, an animal, or other living thing)

murder: the unlawful and premeditated killing of one human being by another

slaughter: kill animals for food.

cull: reduce the population of (a wild animal) by selective slaughter, select from a large quantity; obtain from a variety of source

 

[overherebc]

14 minutes ago, SABloke said:

Do you dislike to word slaughter for the same reason?

 

Yes, we kill animals in a cull, but the English language is great in that a word can be very specific and give the reader/listener a lot of information instantly without the need to clarify. I can say a thing is 'big', 'huge',or 'gigantic' rather than having to say, 'big', 'very big', 'very very big'. Kill is a very vague term.

 

kill: cause the death of (a person, an animal, or other living thing)

murder: the unlawful and premeditated killing of one human being by another

slaughter: kill animals for food.

cull: reduce the population of (a wild animal) by selective slaughter, select from a large quantity; obtain from a variety of source

 

Control with extreme prejudice?

[lampangguy]

It is well past time. I love animals...but even animals that are clearly suffering are left alive and helpless. 

[GarryP]

And while they are at it, make feeding pigeons illegal too. 

[Rimmer]

An off topic picture and replies have been removed

[overherebc]

19 minutes ago, GarryP said:

And while they are at it, make feeding pigeons illegal too. 

Can we start a your next line poem?

 

Rabid dogs and flying rats

Crap on your shoes from ferral cats

No-one really knows the 'stats'

Butts on beach chairs butts on the beach,

because the ashtray is just out of reach.

xx???

[metisdead]

42 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Unfortunate choice of phrase in that headline. 

 

Please read this which can be found in the forum rules:  

 

Quote

Original articles, especially in the Thai press, often have grammatical mistakes or misspellings. ThaiVisa is not responsible for these nor does ThaiVisa have the rights to alter content it is reprinting from another source. 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/terms/

[spidermike007]

Nothing wrong with culling the soi dogs. It is long overdue. For some reason, many Thais think there is some sort of Buddhavistic merit, in feeding soi dogs, and hence the problem continues. They are relatively miserable creatures, who live horrible lives, scavenging for food, and many are ravaged with disease. Put them down. It is the compassionate thing to do. If any of these dogs are privately owned, they need to be kept at, or in the house, and need to wear tags. It is about moving into the 21st century. Those dogs are a scourge of many areas and neighborhoods. This is a really good idea.

[johng]

Can we start a your next line poem?
 
Rabid dogs and flying rats
Crap on your shoes from ferral cats
No-one really knows the 'stats'
Butts on beach chairs butts on the beach,
because the ashtray is just out of reach.
attach a dart board licence to each.

[Get Real]

Shootém all!

[mikebell]

All my posts on this subject for over ten years have advocated this final solution.  Can it be that Thailand is moving into the Twentieth Century?  Next it'll be bent coppers.

[Golden Triangle]

Plenty of soldiers lazing in the barracks, issue each one a 9mm and a few spare mags and off you go, problem sorted.

[Anak Nakal]

If you have dog, take care of it. Not hard!

[dinsdale]

2 hours ago, Misterwhisper said:

We KILL those strays, don't we? So why do people shy away from using that word? Is it too uncomfortable? Does it trigger their conscience? Does it make them too aware that something bad is inflicted on these creatures?

What a silly comment. Cull as a noun is the selective slaughter (killing) of wild animals. To cull these strays is, for me, the most suitable word in this context. I say CULL/KILL the bloody lot. Sounds harsh but Misterwhisper have you been bitten by a dog here? Do you have any kids here? Would you like them to get bitten? Set Zero. I'm all for it, however, I can't see it happening.

[varun]

In typical fashion,  the Thai's have taken notice and are considering more drastic measures,

only after the issue has reached it's boiling point.

Better late than never.

[brucegoniners]

Why doesn't this country invest in some real shelters for these animals? 

 

It's not their fault that their owners didn't fix them or that many Thais just let dogs go in the streets when they don't want to take care of them anymore.

 

The mark of a good society is not only how it takes care of it's people, but also how it takes care of it's animals.

 

Dogs are the most loyal creatures on god's earth, much more so than humans.

 

This country should stick to it's buddhist rules and not kill what god created.

[Lupatria]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Humans first - soi dogs second!

That's exactly the chronological order when asked, who created the problem.

[Airbagwill]

Unless you are on a small island, a cull won't work. You will have to continue killing forever to keep the population down

One female dog and her babies can have over 67,000 puppies in a six-year time frame! That's because a dog can have three litters a year with up to seven puppies per litter.

 

If you kill a dog the gap left will be filled within days with dogs from outside the area.

 

To reduce the dog population to a manageable size you have to deal with the food supply i.e. garbage and garbage disposal and ask people not to feed them.

Limiting the food limits the population that can be supported.

 

PS - please can someone suggest how Bangkok could cope with 300,000 dog carcasses?

 

 

[Airbagwill]

13 minutes ago, brucegoniners said:

Why doesn't this country invest in some real shelters for these animals? 

 

It's not their fault that their owners didn't fix them or that many Thais just let dogs go in the streets when they don't want to take care of them anymore.

 

The mark of a good society is not only how it takes care of it's people, but also how it takes care of it's animals.

 

Dogs are the most loyal creatures on god's earth, much more so than humans.

 

This country should stick to it's buddhist rules and not kill what god created.

6

Thailand's dog population is about 8 million, with an estimated 750 to 800, 000 "roaming dogs. (THis is probably a conservative effort.

If you take a few dogs off the street (you will never manage 100%) the gaps left will immediately be filled by other breeding dogs.

If you neuter dogs and don't put them back in the pack they came from, they too will be replaced by other breeding dogs.

"shelters" might make a few dogs and people feel better about themselves, but they can't address the dog problem in Thailand.

[Colabamumbai]

Could send them to Sakhon somewhere, where they can be eaten, or used for the insides of shoes, as they are now.

[Henrik Andersen]

It is time CULL = KILL

And to people there give food STOP

And to Thai people stop dumb your dog's