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

[Rimmer]

Some off topic posts and replies have been removed

[Airbagwill]

9 hours ago, oldlakey said:

First of all my man I have to hold my hands up and admit that I have been rather negligent here with missing this case in Taiping in Perak in July 2017 my mistake

Now for the good news or maybe not for you, it was just one case and after a short successful cull no more positive results have been found

The authorities made it quite plain it had no connection to Sarawak

This case did NOT come from BORNEO how on earth could it, its quite obvious were it came from just the same as the last outbreak in late 2015

Now as for the last Rabies death in Malaysia [ SARAWAK ] in Feb I have already shown you that person was bitten in late Nov last year, he did not receive the appropriate treatment at the time and that outbreak is at an end have you forgotten already 55555555555

I missed one case thats correct but I have already stated with having porous borders with Thailand and Indonesia, Malaysia have got an on going problem in their quest for Rabies Free Accreditation

Thats two successful CULLS in Malaysia in the last three years which gives Malaysia hope for the future

The only way to achieve any sort of rabies free situation is to prevent the disease from spreading...this is through vaccination not culling as pointed out culling increases the chances of rabies spreading.

[Airbagwill]

10 hours ago, Artisi said:

Who cares, just start reducing the soi dog population in Thailand by what ever system /s work. 

," just start reducing the soi dog population in Thailand by what ever system /s work. "

Exactly!

And the system that works is "Capture, neuter, vaccinate and return".

This and and the control of food sources will reduce the e.g. population. It has been done all over the world.

It s being done in Bangkok it has been successfully carried out in Phuket.

The authorities are not about to engage on an extermination, even they know it won't work and never has.

[Airbagwill]

9 hours ago, oldlakey said:

This case did NOT come from BORNEO how on earth could it,

I don't know where this case came from but it shows that rabies can pop up anywhere any time regardless of culls.

Firstly ALL MAMMALS can contract and carry rabies, so it can cross inter species. E.g.. The dog was bitten by a rat or cat....If the dogs had been vaccinated it would have stopped there.

40 % of all rabies is transmitted through owned pet dogs, so it is also quite possible that someone's pooch was bitten in Borneo and then transported back to the peninsula.

 

It also needs to be borne in mind that rabies in Thailand is actually only a small part of the problem.

Through vaccination of 70% or over the spread of the disease is stopped as herd immunity kicks in..This is usually coupled with measures to prevent new dogs from coming into an area. In Phuket the problem now is puppies introduced to the island for sale at markets.

As areas on mainland sites get herd immunity trapping of incoming dogs and their vaccination protects that herd immunity.. culling just makes it easier for dogs to come in.

Reducing the food supply reduces the incentive for new dogs to enter a zone.

 

I think it is aso worth nothing that no matter how many people on this thread advocate a cull or Set Zero it ain't never gonna happen as even the Thai authorities know it won't work.

 

Of course if you'd like a Bangkok full of rabid cats instead of dogs......????

[Airbagwill]

15 hours ago, AboutThaim said:

Huh? You say to achieve rabies free you need to vaccinate and keep other dogs coming in to the area.  Then the opposite is culling which allows other dogs to come into the area. So in one scenario it is possible to stop dogs from other areas coming in but not in the other.

 

BTW how are you progressing with the details of how to put scavenging dogs on restricted rations?  That seems to be your main arguement for reducing the population. Even though you also say they will go somewhere else if there is no food.  Can you clear up those points to give your arguement a smidgen of respectively?

Catch vaccinate a return prevents other dogs entering the area.

If you restrict the food supply.  E. G. Garbage, then the dog population an area can support is reduced.

The average life of a street dog is about 3 to 4 years.So natural wastage takes care of that.

Intensify low food animals don't comedown heat and breeding reduces.

A cull doesn't address the fgood supply so the gapps left by dead dogs radically filled by dogs from adjacent areas and rapAid breeding continues.

[Airbagwill]

On 3/28/2018 at 4:10 PM, Artisi said:

and he loves cockroaches, spiders, ants, mosquito's, leaches, diseased cats - dogs -cow- birds -  you -  know the type, all mouth and trousers  (with out must in there)

I think this comment shows the underlying problem of comprehension that a lot of posters on this thread have.

It is not a matter of ad hominem attacks on the messengers or about personal beliefs, it is down to hard science and an understanding of the ecosystem that allows such a huge free roaming dog population to, exist.

Animals, dogs in this case, require food water and shelter to thrive. No amount of culling will change this and the population will always bounce back....repeated culls are ineffective and costly and don't address the root of the problem.

Only by addressing the root causes, the amount of food or the populations reproductive rate can the problem be finally addressed.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Airbagwill

[oldlakey]

1 hour ago, Airbagwill said:

I don't know where this case came from but it shows that rabies can pop up anywhere any time regardless of culls.

Firstly ALL MAMMALS can contract and carry rabies, so it can cross inter species. E.g.. The dog was bitten by a rat or cat....If the dogs had been vaccinated it would have stopped there.

40 % of all rabies is transmitted through owned pet dogs, so it is also quite possible that someone's pooch was bitten in Borneo and then transported back to the peninsula.

 

It also needs to be borne in mind that rabies in Thailand is actually only a small part of the problem.

Through vaccination of 70% or over the spread of the disease is stopped as herd immunity kicks in..This is usually coupled with measures to prevent new dogs from coming into an area. In Phuket the problem now is puppies introduced to the island for sale at markets.

As areas on mainland sites get herd immunity trapping of incoming dogs and their vaccination protects that herd immunity.. culling just makes it easier for dogs to come in.

Reducing the food supply reduces the incentive for new dogs to enter a zone.

 

I think it is aso worth nothing that no matter how many people on this thread advocate a cull or Set Zero it ain't never gonna happen as even the Thai authorities know it won't work.

 

Of course if you'd like a Bangkok full of rabid cats instead of dogs......????

Well at least thats progress from your twice insisting that rabies spread from Sarawak to Peninsular Malaysia, a distance of well over 1000 Km and mostly over water

Well done

[Airbagwill]

On 3/27/2018 at 9:32 PM, Artisi said:

I fail to see what is humane in your insistence on wanting to starve them to death

How do you think Soi dog dies? Basically they don't just go to sleep and wake up in doggy heaven.

Their diet is bad and causes huge amounts of diseases in the dogs who after about 3 years become unable to fend for themselves and those that aren't run over or attacked  crawl away and die.

So, if you restrict the breeding rates the population reduces due to "natural wastage".

An 80% neutering rate achieves this and controlling their food supply does this as the dogs instinctively (hormonally), reduce their reproduction rates. Once this is below the death rate the problem is beginning to solve itself.

I would have thought that clearing garbage off the streets and operating proper dumps and collections would be welcomed by most. I can't see anyone campaigning to keep garbage bins open for dogs.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Airbagwill

[Artisi]

12 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

I think this comment shows the underlying problem of comprehension that a lot of posters on this thread have.

It is not a matter of ad hominem attacks on the messengers or about personal beliefs, it is down to hard science and an understanding of the ecosystem that allows such a huge free roaming dog population to, exist.

Animals, dogs in this case, require food water and shelter to thrive. No amount of culling will change this and the population will always bounce back....repeated culls are ineffective and costly and don't address the root of the problem.

Only by addressing the root causes, the amount of food or the populations reproductive rate can the problem be finally addressed.

As for comprehension,  suggest you take the time to actually check and comprehend what the comment was actually answering, rather than charging off completely missing the point, again.

[Artisi]

4 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

How do you think Soi dof a die? Basically they don't just go to sleep and wake up in doggy heaven.

Their diet is bad and causes huge amounts of diseases in the dogs who after about 3 years become unable to feed themselves and those that aren't run over or attacked  crawl away and die.

If you restrict the breeding rates the population reduces due to "natural wastage".

An 80% neutering rate achieves this and controlling their food supply does this as the dogs instinctively (hormonally), reduce their reproduction rates. Once this is below the death rate the problem is beginning to solve itself.

Of course reducing the breeding rate by an on-going cull doesn't reduce the population,  now does it?

[Airbagwill]

8 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Of course reducing the breeding rate by an on-going cull doesn't reduce the population,  now does it?

No it doesn't because the remaining dogs aren't neutered and the food supply is still in place. They quickly build up the population again. In a food rich environment the breeding rate increases.

You will of course also make room for other species to flourish...cats and rats.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Airbagwill

[Airbagwill]

I also wonder if people are aware that there was an attempted culling Bkk a few years back, which had to be abandoned, largely due to public outcry which is why a cull in Bkk is a non starter.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Airbagwill

[Artisi]

12 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

No it doesn't because the remaining dogs aren't neutered and the food supply is still in place. They quickly build up the population again. In a food rich environment the breeding rate increases.

You will of course also make room for other species to flourish...cats and rats.

Oh! here I was thinking the food supply was also being reduced, but is this only done with when you have neutered dogs - well that explains your comments that neutering solves all problems , no food,  no cats no rats etc

 

 

[Airbagwill]

43 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Oh! here I was thinking the food supply was also being reduced, but is this only done with when you have neutered dogs - well that explains your comments that neutering solves all problems , no food,  no cats no rats etc

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Oh! here I was thinking the food supply was also being reduced, but is this only done with when you have neutered dogs - well that explains your comments that neutering solves all problems , no food,  no cats no rats etc

 

 

Food supply determines the size potential of a dog population. Left unattended you get what you've got in Thailand. You then have to consider how to reduce the population to a manageable level.

As demonstrated, culling doesn't work but a neutering program does.

The food supply also needs to be addressed as it is a root cause. This will require the authorities both local and national to reform the waste disposal systems of the country. There are several issues with this quite apart from the dog thing. Over 50% of all industrial waste in Thailand is disposed of illegally.

Waste disposal is a major national problem, if addressed, a side effect will be the reduction of the dog population.

On a local or street level the first steps would be the provision of dog proof bins in sufficient quantities to avoid the temptation townspeople to leave garbage bags on the streets where they can reopened and spread about by the dogs.

I would have thought this is fairly obvious, maybe you need to read up on what is actually being done. It is a 6 year program of sterilisation in Bkk. It has already been successful in Phuket.

It is clear that any animal population is determined by the food supply, ergo, the reduction of the food supply I.E. garbage and  feeding dogs will have a long-term, permanent ffect.You don't think this is a good idea?

Are you aware that within 6 years from a single bitch a population of 67,000 is possible. As I said before, culling is for those Sisyphus aficionados amongst us

Edited March 30, 2018 by Airbagwill

[Artisi]

48 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

I also wonder if people are aware that there was an attempted culling Bkk a few years back, which had to be abandoned, largely due to public outcry which is why a cull in Bkk is a non starter.

So culls are ineffective due to public's outcry, is that correct? 

[Airbagwill]

Some typos corrected....

Food supply determines the size potential of a dog population. Left unattended you get what you've got in Thailand. You then have to consider how to reduce the population to a manageable level.

As demonstrated, culling doesn't work but a neutering program does.

The food supply also needs to be addressed as it is a root cause. This will require the authorities both local and national to reform the waste disposal systems of the country. There are several issues with this quite apart from the dog thing. Over 50% of all industrial waste in Thailand is disposed of illegally.

Waste disposal is a major national problem, if addressed, a side effect will be the reduction of the dog population.

On a local or street level the first steps would be the provision of dog proof bins in sufficient quantities to avoid the temptation townspeople to leave garbage bags on the streets where they can reopened and spread about by the dogs.

I would have thought this is fairly obvious, maybe you need to read up on what is actually being done. It is a 6 year program of sterilisation in Bkk. It has already been successful in Phuket.

It is clear that any animal population is determined by the food supply, ergo, the reduction of the food supply I.E. garbage and  feeding dogs will have a long-term, permanent ffect.You don't think this is a good idea?

Are you aware that within 6 years from a single bitch a population of 67,000 is possible. As I said before, culling is for those Sisyphus aficionados amongst us

[Artisi]

13 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

 

I think you need to read up on what is actually being done. It is a 6 year program of sterilisation in Bkk. It has already been successful in Phuket.

It is clear that any animal population is determined by the food supply, ergo, the reduction of the food supply I.E. garbage and  feeding dogs will have a long-term, permanent ffect.You don't think this is a good idea?

Are you aware that within 6 years from a single bitch a population of 67,000 is possible. As I said before, culling is for those Sisyphus aficionados amongst us

The reduction of the food supply is paramount and certainly not a mind shattering discovery,  a point I made well back at the start of the discussion and a couple of other times since,  "stop feeding soi dogs", it's not rocket science. 

[humbug]

21 people just died from one road accident. 

 

7 people die in 4 months from rabies 

 

one thing this lie of a rabies scare shows is how the farming and pesticide community see all other animals as pests,so as to keep their profits rolling in. Killing animals so as to keep more animals safe which are then killed for greed is just a twisted outdated form of living life.

 

 

[Airbagwill]

27 minutes ago, Artisi said:

So culls are ineffective due to public's outcry, is that correct? 

You seem to be getting a bit desperate.

Trying to dichotomize the issue by clinging to single issues is not a valid argument and hardly a good appraisal of various points i have laid out..

However when attempting a cull you have to consider the practicalities of dealing with up to 4 million dogs.

The first issue is that scientifically culls don't work except in the circumstances I outlined previously.

In Thailand and in many other countries the public outcry is so strong that quite apart from any science, the concept is a non starter.

As has been pointed out the authorities in Bkk are not about to embark on any set zero option, for whatever the reason

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Airbagwill

[Airbagwill]

6 minutes ago, Artisi said:

The reduction of the food supply is paramount and certainly not a mind shattering discovery,  a point I made well back at the start of the discussion and a couple of other times since,  "stop feeding soi dogs", it's not rocket science. 

So did I, glad you were listening. It is also an important factor as to why culls don't work.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Airbagwill

[Airbagwill]

18 minutes ago, humbug said:

21 people just died from one road accident. 

 

7 people die in 4 months from rabies 

 

one thing this lie of a rabies scare shows is how the farming and pesticide community see all other animals as pests,so as to keep their profits rolling in. Killing animals so as to keep more animals safe which are then killed for greed is just a twisted outdated form of living life.

 

 

Without a doubt the rabies aspect is largely media hype and public panic....It is way out of proportion. However there is the main issue that of an out of control free roaming dog population in Thailand.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Airbagwill

[Artisi]

17 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

So did I, glad you were listening. It is also an important factor as to why culls don't work.

Seems you weren't. 

[AboutThaim]

6 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

How do you think Soi dog dies? Basically they don't just go to sleep and wake up in doggy heaven.

Their diet is bad and causes huge amounts of diseases in the dogs who after about 3 years become unable to fend for themselves and those that aren't run over or attacked  crawl away and die.

So, if you restrict the breeding rates the population reduces due to "natural wastage".

An 80% neutering rate achieves this and controlling their food supply does this as the dogs instinctively (hormonally), reduce their reproduction rates. Once this is below the death rate the problem is beginning to solve itself.

I would have thought that clearing garbage off the streets and operating proper dumps and collections would be welcomed by most. I can't see anyone campaigning to keep garbage bins open for dogs.

Garbage bins?  A totally new concept to most locals.  Then of course there is the small problem of getting the people to put unwanted food into them if they are introduced throughout Thailand.  Sulo bins? Expensive too.  Not a very auspicious start to the detail of reducing food supply and certainly no answer to my previous post.

[Airbagwill]

6 hours ago, AboutThaim said:

Garbage bins?  A totally new concept to most locals.  Then of course there is the small problem of getting the people to put unwanted food into them if they are introduced throughout Thailand.  Sulo bins? Expensive too.  Not a very auspicious start to the detail of reducing food supply and certainly no answer to my previous post.

So you think the at garbage OK, even though it is  a root cause? You seem to think the locals would be more resistant to good garbage collection and disposal than culling?

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Airbagwill

[AboutThaim]

4 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

So you think the at garbage OK, even though it is  a root cause? You seem to think the locals would be more resistant to good garbage collection and disposal than culling?

 

I think you need to edit again.  What are you trying to say in the first sentence?

I ask myself, do the locals have to do anything like work to have good garbage disposal.  I answer, yes.

Do they have to do any work to have dogs removed. No.  I go for the removal.  Can I call it a cull, please?

[Airbagwill]

31 minutes ago, AboutThaim said:

I think you need to edit again.  What are you trying to say in the first sentence?

I ask myself, do the locals have to do anything like work to have good garbage disposal.  I answer, yes.

Do they have to do any work to have dogs removed. No.  I go for the removal.  Can I call it a cull, please?

So you say leave the garbage and kill the dogs that will return to eat the garbage?

The local authorities organise both garbage collection and pest control.

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Airbagwill

[The manic]

On 3/15/2018 at 8:02 PM, jvs said:

Seems to me two things are being mixed up here,the dogs carrying rabies and the ever growing population of stray dogs.

Try this one,lets say a soi dog lives for ten years.Probably not but just for argument sake.

You could try in a certain area to feed the dogs and lace their food with a product that will prevent (the pill)the bitches from becoming pregnant.Ten procent per year will die of from natural causes,the next year less food will do the trick and so on.

No need to kill,cull or put dogs to sleep (whatever you want to call it).

In less then five years the problem will be much smaller and this could be a solution everyone can live with?

But why worry about culling animals?  As humans it is our responsibility. The stray dogs are pitiful dogs riddled with worms canker, parasites,  wounds and, all manner of painfull illnesses. It is not a matter of semantics or sentimentality. Stray dogs are unhappy and potentially dangerous and have no place in any society anymore than cockroaches,  headlice or rats, etc. 

,

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

[KiChakayan]

5 hours ago, The manic said:

But why worry about culling animals?  As humans it is our responsibility. The stray dogs are pitiful dogs riddled with worms canker, parasites,  wounds and, all manner of painfull illnesses. It is not a matter of semantics or sentimentality. Stray dogs are unhappy and potentially dangerous and have no place in any society anymore than cockroaches,  headlice or rats, etc. 

,

Indeed, and I'll repeat myself, after 36 pages, still no good reason not to kill the ferals and strays has been given. 

[Artisi]

20 minutes ago, KiChakayan said:

Indeed, and I'll repeat myself, after 36 pages, still no good reason not to kill the ferals and strays has been given. 

But plenty of good reasons why.