3 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

There we are again! If you have so much better education, why don´t you understand that always trying to show off and bragging about better education and higher intellect, just show the opposite. Or maybe you not reached that level yet.

It's not showing off providing links to show how people like this think. It's not only against the law, but the actions of a very disturbed mind. You're outta your league here Gottfrid, and the fact you think poisoning dogs is okay, also shows how you think.  Arguing with someone that not only doesn't understand just how wrong this behavior is, but that you dispute facts and evidence,  shows it's not worth it because you simply don't understand what this topic is about. You obviously weren't raised with respect for animals, because people who do don't resort to shooting dogs because they're over populated because of the locals attitudes and ignorance. 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

You keep rabbits? 

 

 

I did. For the kids. Not anymore. Our youngest accidentally hit the remote and the gate opened, so these two strays came in and viciously ripped the rabbits to shreds. I took a stick and beat the living daylights out of these killer dogs, they were lucky I didn't kill them.

Wrong quote.

 

2 hours ago, Peter Crow said:

Can someone tell me what he used?

 

Can someone explain why raw eggs help? I would hate my dog to die of food poisoning.

1 hour ago, proton said:

 

Has not worked despite the boasts of groups like soi dog foundation, the number they sterilise a day over the past 20 years is minimal, the population growth rate is just marginally slowed down. The army should be sent out nationwide to shoot any strays, that would really have an effect.

The Army has other jobs they need to do, like protecting it's citizens. Shooting random dogs means pets would be shot, as most don't keep their pets on leashes or inside homes, and that will never change because of the attitudes here towards the animals. The only way to control this problem is the government paying the spay/neuter program to be much larger, and countrywide. When the animals are fixed, that means no more babies made.

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

It's not showing off providing links to show how people like this think. It's not only against the law, but the actions of a very disturbed mind. You're outta your league here Gottfrid, and the fact you think poisoning dogs is okay, also shows how you think.  Arguing with someone that not only doesn't understand just how wrong this behavior is, but that you dispute facts and evidence,  shows it's not worth it because you simply don't understand what this topic is about. You obviously weren't raised with respect for animals, because people who do don't resort to shooting dogs because they're over populated because of the locals attitudes and ignorance. 

So, I am basically out of my league, because I don´t agree with you, and see it as a better and cheaper option to kill them off. Ok, stands for you Freddy.

40 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

The Army has other jobs they need to do, like protecting it's citizens. Shooting random dogs means pets would be shot, as most don't keep their pets on leashes or inside homes, and that will never change because of the attitudes here towards the animals. The only way to control this problem is the government paying the spay/neuter program to be much larger, and countrywide. When the animals are fixed, that means no more babies made.

Yeah, but the thing is, that people should keep their dogs inside their homes or gardens. If starting to shoot them off, maybe people would realize that.

12 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

So, I am basically out of my league, because I don´t agree with you, and see it as a better and cheaper option to kill them off. Ok, stands for you Freddy.

Killing dogs isn't the way to control the population, as all the remaining dogs will make more babies than shooting them will keep up with. You step up the spay/neuter program tenfold and you take away the chances of the fixed dogs making any more babies. The program they have now works, but can't keep up with all the loose dogs making babies.

 

Shooting random dogs will piss off many people, as they're pets would also be targets. Thais aren't going to house all the dogs, as that means they actually have to care for them like westerners do. Walking them, keeping them on leashes or in what yards have fences. They aren't going to do this as they don't care enough. You have to take matters into your own hands by fixing all stray dogs and fixing the owned dogs cheap. It's the government's job to do this, but they'd rather buy submarines and jets from other countries to bolster their military. 

27 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Killing dogs isn't the way to control the population, as all the remaining dogs will make more babies than shooting them will keep up with. You step up the spay/neuter program tenfold and you take away the chances of the fixed dogs making any more babies. The program they have now works, but can't keep up with all the loose dogs making babies.

 

Shooting random dogs will piss off many people, as they're pets would also be targets. Thais aren't going to house all the dogs, as that means they actually have to care for them like westerners do. Walking them, keeping them on leashes or in what yards have fences. They aren't going to do this as they don't care enough. You have to take matters into your own hands by fixing all stray dogs and fixing the owned dogs cheap. It's the government's job to do this, but they'd rather buy submarines and jets from other countries to bolster their military. 

Ok, so what you are doing here now, is making difference between my solution and yours. Because you include all dogs in your solution, but with mine, there will be dogs left. So, I guess it will be dogs left with your solution as well. Will the ones left not make babies in the same speed like in my case?

You know the perks with my idea? You will not need to put fences everywhere to put them inside. With your idea, the fences will spread, and suddenly you are sitting there with a fenced home for dogs as you next neighbor. Have I taken matters into my own hands??? Do you see me doing anything, do you see me take action? What we are doing here, Freddy, is having a discussion on an online forum. That, it not to be seen as direct action. Did you just confirm your education level again?

7 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Ok, so what you are doing here now, is making difference between my solution and yours. Because you include all dogs in your solution, but with mine, there will be dogs left. So, I guess it will be dogs left with your solution as well. Will the ones left not make babies in the same speed like in my case?

You know the perks with my idea? You will not need to put fences everywhere to put them inside. With your idea, the fences will spread, and suddenly you are sitting there with a fenced home for dogs as you next neighbor. Have I taken matters into my own hands??? Do you see me doing anything, do you see me take action? What we are doing here, Freddy, is having a discussion on an online forum. That, it not to be seen as direct action. Did you just confirm your education level again?

Yes. I again proved I know more about the subject than you, and my method is humane and not disturbed thinking, poisoning dogs which is a cruel, horrible death. How would you like it if they did this to something you loved? Your idea is against the law and cruel. Mine sees dogs being fixed, which is humane to them anyway, as they live cleaner, longer and aren't bothering people by roaming near as much, fighting, and possibly attacking humans that are in their territory.

 

Yes, it's just ideas which are likely not going to be taken into consideration. Shooting animals is never a good idea unless it is done by a sharpshooter in a controlled environment, like they do for deer sometimes. these are domestic animals, many are pets, so you can't randomly shoot dogs . Poisoning anything, especially domestic animals and a lot of the time pets, is an offense here, and it's happened many times to dogs I've fed, along with others in our village. The only reason it's continuing is that I don't know definitely who's doing it.

 

Don't assume my education level, as you're always be way behind. You obviously hate dogs for some reason, as  a few others here do. That's yours and their problem, and it usually comes from bad learning as a child. 

The stray dogs here can be an annoyance and bring down the appearance and feel of an area, and it's a real problem IMO for this country, stray dogs have also caused deaths and serious injury to motorbike drivers when coming out of nowhere, but I would never do this and I despise animal cruelty. I hope these low life cowards are caught and somebody poisons them.

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

If these dogs have miserable lives trying to scrounge for food and barely surviving, maybe euthanizing them is humane? Why do most countries not have a stray dog issue? How do they handle it? 

 

 

I will no doubt be told that I'm wrong but I've never been to another country with all these stray dogs everywhere, that includes the like of Cambo and 'Nam. It's a big problem for this country, but of course nothing will be done about it.

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

You keep rabbits? 

 

 

 Many of the most dreadful humans to walk the planet have "absolutely loved" animals.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

How would you like it if they did this to something you loved?

We can end it there. I have animals, but they are in a gated environment and walked every single day. 

17 hours ago, BritManToo said:

More to do with risk of punishment, and what you have to lose from criminal activity.

 

 

Absolutely.

20 hours ago, Enoon said:

 Many of the most dreadful humans to walk the planet have "absolutely loved" animals.

 

And maybe for good reason?

 

Most people aren't worth a shxt.

On 8/22/2025 at 9:02 PM, Gottfrid said:

Nothing seems to bother you.

 

Not true. I despise human being who are intentionally cruel to animals.

9 minutes ago, Woke to Sounds said:

 

And maybe for good reason?

 

Most people aren't worth a shxt.

I guess that would be except you, of course. Opsie daisy! Little chip on shoulder boy, are we?
 

5 minutes ago, Woke to Sounds said:

 

Not true. I despise human being who are intentionally cruel to animals.

Ok, so would you agree with that dogs can be considered domesticated animals?

If so, what is most cruel? Letting them live on the streets until they got run over by a car and lost both back paws? Letting them scavenge for food or starve to death on the streets? have to fight among each other for survival? Or just shoot them?

21 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

I guess that would be except you, of course. Opsie daisy! Little chip on shoulder boy, are we?

 

No chip. Just my life experience. Really, truly, most people aren't worth a dump. I'm OK with that.

 

21 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Ok, so would you agree with that dogs can be considered domesticated animals?

If so, what is most cruel? Letting them live on the streets until they got run over by a car and lost both back paws? Letting them scavenge for food or starve to death on the streets? have to fight among each other for survival? Or just shoot them?

 

Dogs have been domesticated, yes.

 

You raise some good points about what is most cruel.

 

Suffering - esp prolonged suffering - is probably the most cruel existence for any sentient being.

 

Poisoning a dog, I would imagine, causes intense suffering to the dog.

 

A single gunshot to the head would cause less suffering (if aimed properly with the intention of instant death to the animal).

 

So I see your point.

 

Best case scenario is the strays are adopted, domesticated and live a better life.

 

2 hours ago, Woke to Sounds said:

 

No chip. Just my life experience. Really, truly, most people aren't worth a dump. I'm OK with that.

 

 

Dogs have been domesticated, yes.

 

You raise some good points about what is most cruel.

 

Suffering - esp prolonged suffering - is probably the most cruel existence for any sentient being.

 

Poisoning a dog, I would imagine, causes intense suffering to the dog.

 

A single gunshot to the head would cause less suffering (if aimed properly with the intention of instant death to the animal).

 

So I see your point.

 

Best case scenario is the strays are adopted, domesticated and live a better life.

 

Agree here! Reality, however, has shown another picture. No one would be happier than me, if the dogs could be adopted and taken care of. That´s just not the case here. The stray dog population is a result of people not taking care of their animals. So, if so many just don´t take care, why would the dogs that gets adopted get people who take care?

The problem here is actually not the dogs, but the human owners. Maybe they should be shot of instead 😉 😂

On 8/23/2025 at 1:16 PM, petedk said:

 

Can someone explain why raw eggs help? I would hate my dog to die of food poisoning.

I was also wondering about that.