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

[spidermike007]

11 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

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?

 

 

Incineration. Burn baby burn. A doggie crematorium. 

[jacko45k]

Surely it should say 'Thais first, soi dogs second, falang husbands last'?

Edited March 15, 2018 by jacko45k

[Airbagwill]

Dogs are extremely adaptable as scavengers - unlike some species that are headed for extinction the dog (a domesticated breed of the original) thrives in human environment. It is bred by humans as a pet but also can live quite happily on the "outskirts" of human hab=itation off the rubbish and scraps that humans leave lying around. So no amount of killing is going to effectively deal with the problem...any effect will be temporary.

In Thailand and Buddhist countries especially culling has never worked - it was tried in BKK but a public outcry put a stop to it.

THere is also the problem of dog ownership and "NIMBYs". Many people don't mind "other" dogs being culled but if their pet (which may live inside or on the street) is shot they will be extremely upset. (it is inevitable that "owned dogs" will be shot)

The NIMBYs will complain that the dogs in their road don't need culling as they are "all friendly" and warn the inhabitants of strangers.

[johng]

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

What like.
Pigs,Chickens,Cows,sheep,panthers,fish,
Flys,mosquitoes,rats,snakes,cockroaches etc etc ?

[poohy]

42 minutes ago, Anak Nakal said:

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

Too hard for most Thais!!

[Airbagwill]

4 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Incineration. Burn baby burn. A doggie crematorium. 

300,000 carcasses in Bangkok alone - in how long a time period? - who wants to live next to that crematorium?

Of course, you could put down poison....and kill thousands of other animals, pollute the rivers, soil and land.....

So shooting - how about shooting accidents - people roaming around town with rifles?

...and of course the public outcry.

...and in the end after a few months a new healthier dog population.

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

3 hours 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 definition.

 

I believe the OP was referring to the use of a euphemism:

 

Definition: a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.

 

... which s/he finds hypocritical.

 

Incidentally, it sounds like this is a phonological variation like "sugar" is used for the "sh" word. "Cull" > "kill". Note the perplexing use of a "c" for the "k" phoneme, but then "c" is so much more civilized and contrived. But I digress!

 

BTW, I have never heard of the word before, but then English is not my first language. If journalism is the art of communicating, then "cull" was not very effective, although I got the gist. 

 

 

[Airbagwill]

1 minute ago, poohy said:

Too hard for most Thais!!

You have a point - people's attitudes to animals need to change. Education rather than culling should be the answer.

dog owners (who I'm sure LOVE their dogs) should be imbued with a sense of social responsibility.

Vaccinations, spaying etc and don't let dogs breed or mingle with the Soi dogs.

All the Sopi dogs in my village hae collars yet they are totally untrained and rubbish is strewn all over the place every night. 

One of the maintenance crew was treated in hospital after being attacked by one dog....the solution? It now wears a muzzle...sometimes.

[Airbagwill]

17 minutes ago, Colabamumbai said:

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

Every time the dog problem is discussed some "bright spark" come up with this cliche....you'd think they'd read a bit before opening themselves up to ridicule.

[Airbagwill]

3 hours ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

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

 

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

"final solution" suggest elimination of the entire population ... "cull" doesn't require this, it suggests a reduction in the overall population but as this leaves breeding packs of animals then, so long as there is food the population will bounce back or even increase as a cull tends to weed out the weakest animals leaving the fit and healthy to breed again.

[Lee4Life]

2 hours 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

 

 When cattle ranchers in the states "cull" the herds, they take out the defective animals but it does not necessarily mean they are killed, not yet anyway...most of the time they are sold off at a different price. This is one definition of "cull", the other definition is, as you stated, to kill off a number of animals to an acceptable level. (most dictionaries actually state "wild animals")

[spidermike007]

3 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

300,000 carcasses in Bangkok alone - in how long a time period? - who wants to live next to that crematorium?

Of course, you could put down poison....and kill thousands of other animals, pollute the rivers, soil and land.....

So shooting - how about shooting accidents - people roaming around town with rifles?

...and of course the public outcry.

...and in the end after a few months a new healthier dog population.

 

Not sure how many studies have been done on the rabies issue. In India these are some of the facts- 

In March, the civic authorities in one of India's richest cities made a startling disclosurre in the country's top court: dog bites in Mumbai had killed more people in 20 years than the two deadly terror attacks in the city - the 1993 serial blasts and the 26/11 attack in 2011.

 

According to the municipality's petition in the Supreme Court, 434 people had died from rabies - a fatal viral infection which is almost 100% preventable - transmitted by dogs between 1994 and 2015. (In comparison, the two attacks killed 422 people.) More than 1.3 million people had been bitten by dogs in the city during the same period.

 

In many cities around the world, the dogs are rounded up, and brought to a shelter. Once they are sterilized or vaccinated, they can be claimed as pets. If they are not claimed within a specific period of time, they are put down with poison. They can then be cremated. The fumes from cremation are no more than those from small factories. It is a simple solution. Something must be done here.

[meinphuket]

Long overdue ! Every night, all night barking strays keep me awake...When they come round 'em up I'll give them a tip !

[meinphuket]

Sell them to Lao, Cambodia and Viet nam.

[overherebc]

47 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.

Have a word with him tonight and ask him why he allows them all to suffer, Oh wait, it's because he gives us a choice.

Ok fine, my choice is get rid of the rabid dogs that 'your' god created. Or is it also his choice that I have to carry a big stick to keep them away from me because I don't want to die from a sh-tty disease that your wonderful god created.

PS.

Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy are better things to believe in.

[lucjoker]

just killing dogs is cruel......

so ,organise dog-fights.......it will be a great succes .....because  Thais will bet on it......and when the military find out.....they will confiscate all dogs ( dart-boards ....)

and problem solved .

Privat owners can allways bribe the police ,so no pombem ,555

[evadgib]

1 minute ago, meinphuket said:

Sell them to Lao, Cambodia and Viet nam.

Only after de-sexing (destroying altogether is the only practical way ahead IMO).

[Cereal]

I, too, love dogs. However, those soi beasts aren't dogs, they're disease ridden animals that serve no good or positive purpose at all. Kill 'em all I say. Good riddance, they won't be missed. 

[AlphMichaels]

This is every bit as much a people problem.   Systemic at the core.  Now something must be done but blaming the dogs is BS. 

 

I loathe how most treat dogs here.  

[ThaiWai]

If it were rats or roaches no one would care.  Kill'em.  Mind you I did take one home and he's a good watchdog and we love him but this place is turning into a zoo with no bars.  Pretty soon its gonna be like India where a cow can just walk up and shit in your curry bowl and you are supposed to thank him.  No way man.  Let the cull commence.

[overherebc]

2 minutes ago, Cereal said:

I, too, love dogs. However, those soi beasts aren't dogs, they're disease ridden animals that serve no good or positive purpose at all. Kill 'em all I say. Good riddance, they won't be missed. 

They will all go to heaven then where they can chase all the fluffy bunnies that died from myxamatosis?? and eat them, oh hold on a minute, if they eat the fluffy bunnies where do they go? Is heaven multi-layered and they all just keep moving up and do the dogs move down a layer because they killed a fluffy bunny.

This heaven could be a complicated place.

[overherebc]

38 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

You have a point - people's attitudes to animals need to change. Education rather than culling should be the answer.

dog owners (who I'm sure LOVE their dogs) should be imbued with a sense of social responsibility.

Vaccinations, spaying etc and don't let dogs breed or mingle with the Soi dogs.

All the Sopi dogs in my village hae collars yet they are totally untrained and rubbish is strewn all over the place every night. 

One of the maintenance crew was treated in hospital after being attacked by one dog....the solution? It now wears a muzzle...sometimes.

Amazing isn't it. Means that 'sometimes' he won't get bitten.

Probably gives the 'owner' an out if he has a photo of it with the muzzle on it,  see, can't be my dog.

[Davy g]

cull, kill whatever the word it needs to be done or we can let them roam and attack and infect a humans and we can watch them die of a horrible death.

[Rayscape]

Well very interesting, certainly some of the comments. However the real problem, is an over population of the human race ( a cull? ). Also their typical reaction of blaming these problems on the animals, rather than looking at the real issue! That is, people keeping pets, and not being bothered to have them snipped. I live on a little island in Greece. A wealthy Swedish women deposited a large amount of money, at the local vets, for the islanders to have their pets snipped for free. This was well published.  Well in 4 years, not one Greek has been to have their pet/pets snipped. They either dump them at dustbins, or in the dustbins, or they throw them in our garden. Yes we now have 28 cats, all snipped. If you cannot afford to keep a pet? Then do not get one in the first place. Education, I generally thought was the issue with the locals, however from reading some of the comments here, a few others need to their heads out of the sand. Or wherever it happens to be at this time? Please do not come back with " The Thai's cannot afford this ". 

[Cabradelmar]

3 hours ago, Misterwhisper said:

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

Then go with euthanased

[hobobo]

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

 

I guess that'd be asking too much?

 

 

[Airbagwill]

36 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Not sure how many studies have been done on the rabies issue. In India these are some of the facts- 

In March, the civic authorities in one of India's richest cities made a startling disclosurre in the country's top court: dog bites in Mumbai had killed more people in 20 years than the two deadly terror attacks in the city - the 1993 serial blasts and the 26/11 attack in 2011.

 

According to the municipality's petition in the Supreme Court, 434 people had died from rabies - a fatal viral infection which is almost 100% preventable - transmitted by dogs between 1994 and 2015. (In comparison, the two attacks killed 422 people.) More than 1.3 million people had been bitten by dogs in the city during the same period.

 

In many cities around the world, the dogs are rounded up, and brought to a shelter. Once they are sterilized or vaccinated, they can be claimed as pets. If they are not claimed within a specific period of time, they are put down with poison. They can then be cremated. The fumes from cremation are no more than those from small factories. It is a simple solution. Something must be done here.

All I can see here is that you've outlined a few of the issues connected with dop population problems around the world.

 

the point I'm malking is that in Thailand a "cull" won't work.

It might make a few people think something is being done, but in a relatively short period of time it will become apparent that the dog problem has not been solved.

 

As I said, food supply is the only long-term solution.

 

I also addressed the ineffectiveness of "shelters as unless the dogs are put back in the pack they came from they will be replaced by fertile dogs.

 

You also grossly underestimate the particulate problem created in somewhere like BKK by the continuous cremation of 300.000 dog carcasses. Let alone the logistics of such an enterprise, where are you going to store the carcasses waiting to be burned and how many incinerators are going to be built?

The authorities will have to kill and dispose of about 1 million animals in a relatively short period.

In the meantime the bitches are heading towards there 67,000 in 6 years - this has to be stemmed as well - its like painting the Forth suspension bridge.

[alation]

Cull ,cull cull and cull and those that feed and water the strays make them be responsible for the dog and the damage it may cause to a child or adult 

Come on cull cull cull 

[dorchester]

Koto's gonna be pissed.All that dog food scattered all over pattaya and jomtiem beach.Oh well the cigarette campaign was a success

 

 

[Artisi]

4 hours ago, Misterwhisper said:

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.          

If you have a problem with cull, how about exterminate - and the sooner it starts the better.

After a few days notification to the locals to get YOUR dogs off the streets, any dogs found on the street will be exterminated - end of story.