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

[overherebc]

33 minutes ago, dfdgfdfdgs said:

A single barge to Ho Chi Minh should do it.

Don't do that, I'm going there next month. ???

[zzidenn]

5 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.          

yes ! dogs are a creation of humans, since there are no natural dogs anywhwre in the wild but wolves. every dog is our responsibility! its not merit to feed a stray dog, taking it in and giving it a home does the trick. 

[Rimmer]

An off topic troll post featuring Hitler and Mussolini has been removed 

[ratcatcher]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the topic was rats, would anyone be calling for them to be neutered and education for people? I doubt it.

Certainly not! I'd be out of work....................

[overherebc]

28 minutes ago, Arkady said:

 

1. Apart from rabies and parasites CIV, which is highly prevalent in Thailand, is a possibility which the vet can't vaccinate against or fix.  My mother-in-law's kitten just died of FIV, the feline equivalent.

 

2. If your dogs displease a local in any way, he is more likely to deal with them with a choice piece poisoned chicken. The MiL also lost a dog that way, foaming at the moth and writhing in agony, poor sod. No one claimed responsibility but one of the neighbours had been grumbling about the dog chasing his chickens. 

That's why I don't/won't take them outside.

They are happy in their own big garden.

Edit.

Obviously the dog was allowed to run about wherever and whenever it wanted, you mentioned the neighbour complained it was chasing chickens. I'm not saying it deserved what happened  but that's the way it is here. The neighbours chickens are more important to him and his family than some uncontrolled dog running around.

[malibukid]

neuter and vaccinate.  this may cost more but it is more humane.

[Arkady]

 

[cardinalblue]

About 60 people die on the roads every day and 3 kids drown every 24 hours in thailand....how many people die from dog rabies every year?

 

culling is not the answer unless ii is part of some comprehensive dog management plan. Is there a plan in the works? I doubt it..

 

the problem with culling is just that a knee jerk reaction not part of any thought out plan...

 

soi dogs have have an ave annual life of 2 years....cull x # and w/o a sterilization plan you will be at the original # again in 2-3 years....what long term plan have you gained?

 

culling #s of a species are always part of a master plan with many factors and data known....

 

who hit wants to bet that the #s put forward are nothing but a shot in the dark #based on zero analysis...

 

best thing thailand could do is ask for outside help from people who has experience with culling dogs in particular or something similar 

 

culling is a product of a program that overpopulated b/c that population was protected and managed too well so to speak...

 

Thai soi dog population is an example of a hands off totally unmanaged population....

 

master plan where selected culling is just a bullet point in the overall plan...

 

killing 10k dogs or whatever is like seeding the clouds of polluted skies in the north...it ain't a solution to the cause of the problem..

[GroveHillWanderer]

There are two main organizations in the world that conduct scientific monitoring of rabies outbreaks and the various worldwide efforts to control the disease: the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Global Alliance for Rabies Control (GARC). Both these organisations agree that the destruction of stray dogs by itself has never been shown to be an effective measure and only works as an adjunct to a mass vaccination.

 

The WHO website has the following information:

 

Quote

• Dog destruction alone is not effective in rabies control. There is no evidence that removal of dogs alone has ever had a significant impact on dog population densities or the spread of rabies. In addition, dog removal may be unacceptable to local communities. However, the targeted and humane removal of unvaccinated, ownerless dogs may be effective when used as a supplementary measure to mass vaccination.
• Mass canine vaccination campaigns have been the most effective measure for controlling canine rabies. 

 

[malibukid]

cats here n Chiang Mai keep the rat population at bay.  they are serving a purpose.  rabies in the feline population is only about 2.3% compared to the canine population.  the kitties should be spared.

[TC206]

High time something was done. Local government must round up any dog without a collar in the soi's and get rid of them. ie lethal injection or just shoot em...whatever works for a painless quick solution. The poor bloody dogs are in bad shape anyway and would be put out of their misery. 

Shame on the people who buy these things when they look cute then abandon them when they get bigger. 

 

[zzidenn]

how can the article say something like „humans first“? is that now a war against dogs?  this is not a problem caused by dogs, this is a problem caused by the shortsightedness and lack of responsibility of humans, in particular thai people.

these dogs would much rather be in a happy home, because thats what WE breed then for. it‘s not like we are talking about a pack of wolves, we are talking about abandoned pets. 

i‘d rather have the irresponsible „owners“ neutered or culled. 

owning a dog is a fulltime job if people dont realize that, they should not own one. other countries require pets to be registered and vaccinated. why doesnt that work in thailand? If that‘s already too much of a hassle for people to actually do, too much of a comittment, then dont get a dog. 

dogs are not toys, they are living beings and they deserve better.

this problem won‘t go away unless everybody helps.

what good does it do to kill all the street dogs if people keep on buying sick and way too young puppies from nightmarkets or obviously chatuchak and then just abandon then again. 

this is a question of education and regulation. 

respect all life

 

(throwing a dish of old food on the street is not respect)

[Jimdandy]

4 hours ago, GarryP said:

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

In New York they used to call pigeons 'flying rats' after the populations got out of hand. Tough problem with these dogs. Why didn't the government do something about it before it got this bad?! -Just a soliloquy, I already know the answer... 

[overherebc]

5 minutes ago, TC206 said:

High time something was done. Local government must round up any dog without a collar in the soi's and get rid of them. ie lethal injection or just shoot em...whatever works for a painless quick solution. The poor bloody dogs are in bad shape anyway and would be put out of their misery. 

Shame on the people who buy these things when they look cute then abandon them when they get bigger. 

 

I've got a sign on the gate that says stray cats and dogs lawyers and religious sects from USA welcome. Dog food is getting expensive.

[Arkady]

11 minutes ago, overherebc said:

That's why I don't/won't take them outside.

They are happy in their own big garden.

 

I am lucky that I live in a village that doesn't often have stray dogs in it, so I can take my dog for walks.  But we have a neighbour who is a vet that owns an aggressive dog and her family and maids are too lazy to make sure the gates are shut.  The dog has attacked my dogs who were on a lease and I beat it off with a stick and by throwing stones.  Another neighbour's poodle wasn't so lucky and got badly bitten but the vet sewed it up for free.  Other dogs and a little girl have also been bitten and I saw the dog chasing after two coppers on a motor bike once.  It is amazing that some well educated Thais can be so irresponsible with their dogs, especially in this case a vet.

[overherebc]

1 minute ago, Arkady said:

 

I am lucky that I live in a village that doesn't often have stray dogs in it, so I can take my dog for walks.  But we have a neighbour who is a vet that owns an aggressive dog and her family and maids are too lazy to make sure the gates are shut.  The dog has attacked my dogs who were on a lease and I beat it off with a stick and by throwing stones.  Another neighbour's poodle wasn't so lucky and got badly bitten but the vet sewed it up for free.  Other dogs and a little girl have also been bitten and I saw the dog chasing after two coppers on a motor bike once.  It is amazing that some well educated Thais can be so irresponsible with their dogs, especially in this case a vet.

You can borrow my two if you want. Only problem being they will want to sleep at your feet.

?

[GroveHillWanderer]

9 minutes ago, cardinalblue said:

best thing thailand could do is ask for outside help from people who has experience with culling dogs in particular or something similar 

Exactly - and the group with the most expertise is the Global Alliance for Rabies Control. As I  mentioned, their recommendation (based on their experience of rabies control programs in 37 countries worldwide, especially in Africa and Asia, where the problem is endemic) is that mass canine vaccination is the most effective measure to control rabies. As both they and the WHO point out, the removal of dogs alone has never proved an effective measure.

[juice777]

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.          

What a ridiculous post

 

1.

 

a selective slaughter of wild animals.

 

I sure you knew that

 

If some terminally ill person is going to have euthanasia should we say oh he Is going to be killed by the Doctors in sweeden.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[connda]

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

Now there is a break from the normal Thai cultural mindset.  Start to move toward Western thinking.  Try all dogs need a collar, and tag with the owner's name and address, and an up to date rabies vaccination tag.  Strays without those go to the pound and are euthanized. 

I'm not too sympathetic.  My dogs are fenced and all have up to date shots.

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, ubonr1971 said:

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.

 

'relatively miserable creatures'. Are you talking about yourself?

Thank you for your kind, graceful, diplomatic, heartfelt reply. It looks like it required a great deal of thought, a powerful intellect, and a Tiny Don type mentality. And a great deal of judgment, based on my opinion that culling is a positive way to respond to this horrendous, and never ending problem.

 

In the many years I have lived in Thailand, I have encountered many soi dogs. Most are very mangy, many appears to be very hungry, alot are diseased, and few look like they are enjoying good lives. Many are aggressive, and some terrorize their neighborhoods, disturb the real dogs to no end, causing them to bark endlessly (the domesticated ones), bite people who walk or ride by, and at the very least, scare the crap out of them.

 

That was my point. And your point was? Could you also share your solution with us, based on that very powerful intellect. 

 

 

[britishrepublican]

5 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.          

Ok luv...

[thaibeachlovers]

33 minutes ago, malibukid said:

neuter and vaccinate.  this may cost more but it is more humane.

A neutered and vaccinated soi dog is still going to try and bite me when I'm out on my bike and it's still going to get a plastic pipe across its nose if it gets close enough to bite me.

However, not one dog ever kept coming once it saw my pipe. They always ran away.

[Rayscape]

1 hour ago, Airbagwill said:

I have pointed out several times that islands are not the same as mainland diogs populations.

If youhave a relatively small isolated population, neutering, vaccinations culls even work. But with a ppopulationof hundreds and thousands scattered around the mainland, th situation is completley different. If you remove any animals they are rapidly replaced withy critters from ajoining areas.

One has to address the base causes of t popualtion and that is food - as suplies in garbage or by misguided people feeding them.

Yes, but you are really not seeing my the point. Being on a small island, has made no difference whatsoever. Please read what I said. Until the human race, take a little more responsibility for their actions! Then cull as much as you like, the problem is not going to be resolved. A little like pollution and derogation of our planet. Or are we going blame someone else for that as well. The human race needs to wake up. We are suppose to be the master race? I believe a cockroach could do a better job, than we are doing! 

[kaorop]

5 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.          

Huh? Its called culling because that is what it is. It not random or unreasoned or malicious or violent or cruel or unnecessary etc. etc. Which what killing is mostly about.

Check your dictionary and check your moralizing..

My bet it you are not out there dealing with ever growing packs and numbers of wild diseased dogs...

 

 

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

Thailand is in a crisis situation. The desperately late necessary cull in Chiang Mai is ONE part of a long term solution that is totally consistent with Buddhist precepts of compassion. The dogs living on the streets are suffering due to human neglect. I’m not a child who MUST walk to school but do you think it is natural that I have to think, “well, I can’t go ride my bike too early, even though it is cool now because I will be chased by rabid dogs”?

Any way tessaban should just offer 100 baht per carcass. Thai love of money will trump Amhimsa Buddhist ethics and the immediate problem will be solved very quickly.

[Kimber]

7 hours 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.

 

There's an untapped Tourist commercial opportunity there,   "Safari"  hunts focussed on stray Dogs !

[thhMan]

If they could extend the culling to some humans that should not be breeders, then its a win situation for Thailand

[geoffrobbo]

Yes, cull seems to be a practical solution to the immediate problem. But in the longer term the government should catch, spay/neuter and inoculate the strays.

[Cranky]

This is simply one more thing to add to the 'to-do' list.  Thailand has the means, the methods and the motive to fix this relatively minor problem.  But, like road safety, education, healthcare, welfare etc. have no intention of addressing it with any meaningful long-term plan.  Everything here is a quick fix vote-buyer that is forgotten in days with no change to the underlying direction of the country WRT to these topics.  Down.  

 

Put a bounty on their heads.  You can bet if there was money to be made from rounding up dogs the Sois and 711s would be dog-free zones in a matter of days.

[Stoker58]

"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."

  The people who do this are anti-social criminals.