“Way to a million” Soi Dog hits 750,000 sterilisations in Thailand

[androokery]

17 minutes ago, billsmart said:

If you kill them, IMO, YOU are the problem, not them. ????

The consequences of your position causes a lot of problems for me. So... you might just be a problem to me. 

[androokery]

23 minutes ago, billsmart said:

I currently have adopted 14 strays. How about you? How many do you have? 

That's horrifying. Do you have neighbours?

[jacko45k]

1 hour ago, 2baht said:

....and how many will you be taking home to care for?

Or shoot?

[androokery]

There's a pack of dogs near my condo. They control an abandoned plot and they confronted me quite often when I just moved in, but no real attacks when I made them aware I would fight back. Now they mostly ignore me. But these are huge dogs, gone are the days of the slender medium sized dogs. These are German shepherd size. And some idiots come to feed them in the mornings. 

 

There is a rival pack in an area one street over. Sometimes, often at night, there is some kind of conflict going on, let's call it a turf war. And coming home late at night on foot or even on a motorbike is decidedly not safe for me. 

 

This is IN A CITY.  It is infuriating that people defend these dogs and that some even feed them.

[billsmart]

9 minutes ago, androokery said:

The consequences of your position causes a lot of problems for me. So... you might just be a problem to me. 

Yes, we disagree completely on this subject. Killing dogs just because you consider them a nuisance is not acceptable at all to me.

[billsmart]

9 minutes ago, androokery said:

Bill Smart: I currently have adopted 14 strays. How about you? How many do you have? 

 

That's horrifying. Do you have neighbours?

No, I'm from the USA, so I don't have any "neighbours." I do have "neighbors," and all of them have multiple dogs.

[androokery]

2 minutes ago, billsmart said:

Yes, we disagree completely on this subject. Killing dogs just because you consider them a nuisance is not acceptable at all to me.

Calling them a "nuisance" is understating the issue quite dramatically. They can and do cause more than a "nuisance". Having your face chewed off might be a "nuisance" to you but it would be catastrophic for me. I.e. if my face was chewed off. If it was yours I'm now leaning towards a totally different position. One that is closer to thinking it sounds annoying.

[androokery]

3 minutes ago, billsmart said:

No, I'm from the USA, so I don't have any "neighbours." I do have "neighbors," and all of them have multiple dogs.

*Sigh*, sorry Mr Smart, I'm not a native English speaker and neither, obviously, are you ???? 

[proton]

41 minutes ago, billsmart said:

If you kill them, IMO, YOU are the problem, not them. ????

So you don't eat meant then? 

[proton]

11 minutes ago, billsmart said:

Yes, we disagree completely on this subject. Killing dogs just because you consider them a nuisance is not acceptable at all to me.

What about other pests like rats and mice, against culling them as well?

[billsmart]

2 minutes ago, androokery said:

Calling them a "nuisance" is understating the issue quite dramatically. They can and do cause more than a "nuisance". Having your face chewed off might be a "nuisance" to you but it would be catastrophic for me. I.e. if my face was chewed off. If it was yours I'm now leaning towards a totally different position. One that is closer to thinking it sounds annoying.

I've never heard of anyone being injured like that. Have you, or is that just a convenient rumor or fear you have? If you call "getting your face chewed off" a "catastrophe," what would you call your mother, father, brother, sister, or friends being poisoned or rounded up and given a fatal injection? I'd call that a massacre. ????

[billsmart]

1 minute ago, proton said:

What about other pests like rats and mice, against culling them as well?

Yes.

[billsmart]

3 minutes ago, proton said:

So you don't eat meant then? 

I eat meat and plants. 

[kwilco]

19 hours ago, proton said:

Just 102 a day over the past 20 years then and most of those let back on the streets to continue being noise, disease, safety pests. Rather misleading as usual. How many has this poor effort reduced the population by I wonder. obviously just a sticking plaster non solution to the problem..

 

Sterilised dogs can't reproduce and vaccinated can't spread diseases like rabies.

You have totally got the wrong end of the stick!!!

CNVR is the ONLY way to tackle the dog problem.

Despite the SDF 's efforts people keep feeding dogs and local authorities leave garbage uncollected...this feeds the dogs and allows them to breed.

SDF targets certain areas....take a look at Phuket compared to other areas of Thailand..

Bangkok has a huge problem and SDF almost alone are addressing it.

 

[androokery]

22 minutes ago, billsmart said:

I've never heard of anyone being injured like that. Have you, or is that just a convenient rumor or fear you have? If you call "getting your face chewed off" a "catastrophe," what would you call your mother, father, brother, sister, or friends being poisoned or rounded up and given a fatal injection? I'd call that a massacre. ????

How do you share a gene pool with dogs? Are you counting your lineage back to a common ancestor in the Jurassic era?

And how can you NOT have heard about people being attacked by dogs and suffering horrible injuries, such as multiple bites to the face? Are you being intentionally obtuse?

[androokery]

9 minutes ago, kwilco said:

 

Sterilised dogs can't reproduce and vaccinated can't spread diseases like rabies.

You have totally got the wrong end of the stick!!!

CNVR is the ONLY way to tackle the dog problem.

Despite the SDF 's efforts people keep feeding dogs and local authorities leave garbage uncollected...this feeds the dogs and allows them to breed.

SDF targets certain areas....take a look at Phuket compared to other areas of Thailand..

Bangkok has a huge problem and SDF almost alone are addressing it.

 

Are you saying killing the dogs isn't a way to tackle the problem because it wouldn't have the desired effect? In that case I think you are wrong. But maybe you're saying it's not realistic to expect Thai society to choose that option? Or that it would be morally wrong somehow?

[billsmart]

1 minute ago, androokery said:

How do you share a gene pool with dogs? Are you counting your lineage back to a common ancestor in the Jurassic era?

And now can you NOT have heard about people being attacked by dogs and suffering horrible injuries, such as multiple bites to the face? Are you being intentionally obtuse?

My references to "mothers, fathers, etc." in my previous post wasn't about my relatives. They were about the relatives of the dogs that you are suggesting ought to be killed. I was speaking about them. Of course, you don't seem to consider anyone else's feelings except yours. 

I have never heard of anyone getting their "face chewed off" by soi dogs in Thailand. I have heard of people getting their "face chewed off" by dogs, but they were either already dead when that happened or an attack by their own or their neighbor's (or neighbour's ????) dogs. I have heard stories about soi dogs attacking kids or acting aggressive towards people walking down the soi, but, of course, we never hear the full story and if there was any provocation or history of provocations by the humans involved. My point here is if some humans go out into the soi and chase and beat or kill dogs, that would, IMO, increase the likelihood of these kind of interactions.

My point is, killing ALL the dogs in an area even if one person was attacked by one or two is not an acceptable suggestion to me. I find it abhorrent. 

 

[proton]

41 minutes ago, kwilco said:

 

Sterilised dogs can't reproduce and vaccinated can't spread diseases like rabies.

You have totally got the wrong end of the stick!!!

CNVR is the ONLY way to tackle the dog problem.

Despite the SDF 's efforts people keep feeding dogs and local authorities leave garbage uncollected...this feeds the dogs and allows them to breed.

SDF targets certain areas....take a look at Phuket compared to other areas of Thailand..

Bangkok has a huge problem and SDF almost alone are addressing it.

 

They can still spread disease, they are only vaccinated for rabies. They are still a noise and poo pest as well as a traffic hazard and danger from attacks. The best way to get rid of soi dogs is culling, not skirting around the problem and pretending sterilisation on a minor scale is a solution.

[androokery]

19 minutes ago, billsmart said:

My references to "mothers, fathers, etc." in my previous post wasn't about my relatives. They were about the relatives of the dogs that you are suggesting ought to be killed. I was speaking about them. Of course, you don't seem to consider anyone else's feelings except yours. 

I have never heard of anyone getting their "face chewed off" by soi dogs in Thailand. I have heard of people getting their "face chewed off" by dogs, but they were either already dead when that happened or an attack by their own or their neighbor's (or neighbour's ????) dogs. I have heard stories about soi dogs attacking kids or acting aggressive towards people walking down the soi, but, of course, we never hear the full story and if there was any provocation or history of provocations by the humans involved. My point here is if some humans go out into the soi and chase and beat or kill dogs, that would, IMO, increase the likelihood of these kind of interactions.

My point is, killing ALL the dogs in an area even if one person was attacked by one or two is not an acceptable suggestion to me. I find it abhorrent. 

 

I find it abhorrent that you suggest the victims of these horrific dog attacks, many of whom as you point out are kids, somehow have themselves to blame. 

[warrima]

Over 19MUSD Global income in 2021 according to their finance audit. Quite the business. They are looking for a fundraising director with a salary of nearly 40k usd. I imagine the execs and other directors do well also.

 

When Granny sends her full weeks pension wonder how little makes it to the bottom of the pyramid. 

[mikebell]

This sterilisation exercise is a colossal waste of time; money; effort; designed to placate people like the not-so-bright Mr Smart & his circus. Loose dogs bring down motor bikes daily; they spread disease by defecating/urinating anywhere/everywhere; they kill and disfigure (often children) almost weekly; they distribute bagged up rubbish.  After sterilisation they are put back on the streets to continue these activities!  They exist in the most appalling conditions; mange-ridden; starving & in pain.  Hypocritical Thais will cling to their Buddhist principles whilst slaughtering edible animals in various inhumane ways.  The most sensible and kindest way is a mass cull. 

[Baron Samedi]

Don't forget to sterilize Anutin, na krap.

Thank you ????

[proton]

1 hour ago, billsmart said:

I eat meat and plants. 

So you do not love animals then, just dirty, drooling doggies and quite happy to let others kill animals for you so you can eat them.

[billsmart]

34 minutes ago, androokery said:

I find it abhorrent that you suggest the victims of these horrific dog attacks, many of whom as you point out are kids, somehow have themselves to blame. 

I did suggest that the "victims" might indeed have themselves to blame, or their attacks might be the result of some other humans' actions which have harmed the dogs. Why do you think soi dogs attack "innocent" humans? Do you think they see them as food? As intruders on their territory? As a danger to themselves and their pack? Why would they attack a human?

And, the next time you see a report of a "horrific" soil dog attack, or if you have any references to ones that have occurred, send me the links. I'd send you links to instances where humans kill animals for fun or for their convenience, but there would be just too many of those for me to handle.

[proton]

11 minutes ago, mikebell said:

This sterilisation exercise is a colossal waste of time; money; effort; designed to placate people like the not-so-bright Mr Smart & his circus. Loose dogs bring down motor bikes daily; they spread disease by defecating/urinating anywhere/everywhere; they kill and disfigure (often children) almost weekly; they distribute bagged up rubbish.  After sterilisation they are put back on the streets to continue these activities!  They exist in the most appalling conditions; mange-ridden; starving & in pain.  Hypocritical Thais will cling to their Buddhist principles whilst slaughtering edible animals in various inhumane ways.  The most sensible and kindest way is a mass cull. 

Right, the Buddhist excuse does not hold up as they are all massive meat scoffers and their markets look like an animal lovers nightmare, not to mention cock fighting and other cruelties. The book which cannot be mentioned is a large factor in doing nothing about soi dogs. It's not making a merit or doing good to sterilise and let them continue suffering and being pests.

[billsmart]

2 minutes ago, proton said:

Bill Smart" I eat meat and plants. 

 

So you do not love animals then, just dirty, drooling doggies and quite happy to let others kill animals for you so you can eat them.

No, you, like a lot of people, read things like this all wrong.

All living beings sustain their lives at the cost of other living beings. They don't necessarily kill other beings, but they survive by eating/absorbing other being's remnants. So, yes, I eat meat and plants, and I don't disapprove of killing animals and plants for food - even dogs - even humans, if it ever came to that.

The point of all this isn't whether you kill or approve of killing. The point of this is WHY you kill. If you kill for food, that's fine with me. If you kill for self-defense, that's fine with me. But, if you kill for your convenience, or worse yet, for fun, that's not fine with me.

I believe most all of the supporters of killing soi dogs do so for convenience, not for self-defense (although that's what many suggest) and not for food.

[proton]

3 minutes ago, billsmart said:

I did suggest that the "victims" might indeed have themselves to blame, or their attacks might be the result of some other humans' actions which have harmed the dogs. Why do you think soi dogs attack "innocent" humans? Do you think they see them as food? As intruders on their territory? As a danger to themselves and their pack? Why would they attack a human?

And, the next time you see a report of a "horrific" soil dog attack, or if you have any references to ones that have occurred, send me the links. I'd send you links to instances where humans kill animals for fun or for their convenience, but there would be just too many of those for me to handle.

The oldest apologist excuse for dog attacks- the victim must have provoked the dog, almost as untrue as -there are no bad dogs only bad owners myth. So a baby killed by a dog must have provoked it -by being a baby then? Most dogs will attack if they think they can get away with it, nasty sly animals

 

Plenty of links on this site for unprovoked dog killer incidents

 

 

[proton]

1 minute ago, billsmart said:

No, you, like a lot of people, read things like this all wrong.

All living beings sustain their lives at the cost of other living beings. They don't necessarily kill other beings, but they survive by eating/absorbing other being's remnants. So, yes, I eat meat and plants, and I don't disapprove of killing animals and plants for food - even dogs - even humans, if it ever came to that.

The point of all this isn't whether you kill or approve of killing. The point of this is WHY you kill. If you kill for food, that's fine with me. If you kill for self-defense, that's fine with me. But, if you kill for your convenience, or worse yet, for fun, that's not fine with me.

I believe most all of the supporters of killing soi dogs do so for convenience, not for self-defense (although that's what many suggest) and not for food.

Plants are not 'beings' in no way are the comparable to other mammals. If you see no problem with eating mammals then why not dogs? there is no difference between a pig and a dog, apart from a pig being more intelligent and less likely to kill the baby when you are out of the room. 

[billsmart]

1 minute ago, proton said:

The oldest apologist excuse for dog attacks- the victim must have provoked the dog, almost as untrue as -there are no bad dogs only bad owners myth. So a baby killed by a dog must have provoked it -by being a baby then? Most dogs will attack if they think they can get away with it, nasty sly animals

 

Plenty of links on this site for unprovoked dog killer incidents

 

 

IMO, humans are much nastier and slier than any dog.

And the article you posted was about a dog attack in the USA by the owner's dog, not a soi dog in Thailand.

How about this image for a sample of human's killing innocent animals? 

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, androokery said:

Are you saying killing the dogs isn't a way to tackle the problem because it wouldn't have the desired effect? In that case I think you are wrong. But maybe you're saying it's not realistic to expect Thai society to choose that option? Or that it would be morally wrong somehow?

100% culling dogs doesn't work  this has been shown worldwide. 

Culling can only work on selected species in confined small areas....e g an island.

 

Digs rely on food and shelter to thrive.

Culling is NEVER  100% effective and birches with food and shelter can have 3 to 4 litters per year   the population bounces back   .. even more quickly as dogs from spinning areas quickly move back in. Culling in effect doesn't reduce the population it replaces it with healthier animals....it also aids rhe spread of rabies as dogs move about and interact of territories .