Are Farangs Playing A Major Part In The Dog Problems Of Pattaya? (And Elsewhere)

[gaucho]

the dogs r a real problem ...they have attacked people on numerous occasions i remember a japanese was ripped to pieces in jomtien and needed hundreds of stitches ...the dogs should be rounded up and quietly seen to ...i know this will offend a lot of people ....the thais dont seem to give a flying .............was in a jewellery store on beach rd once and the store dog actually bit a customer ...fxxxxken unbelievable ....she had just bought an expensive piece ...the owner just sat there ...i asked my hotel to speak to a shop that had numerous dogs that were disturbing and harassing everyone the owner more or less just said to fxxxk off ... the same happens in the pi as well ...people seem to enjoy it when their dog is annoying or frightening people

[tropo]

the dogs r a real problem ...they have attacked people on numerous occasions i remember a japanese was ripped to pieces in jomtien and needed hundreds of stitches ...the dogs should be rounded up and quietly seen to ...i know this will offend a lot of people ....the thais dont seem to give a flying .............was in a jewellery store on beach rd once and the store dog actually bit a customer ...fxxxxken unbelievable ....she had just bought an expensive piece ...the owner just sat there ...i asked my hotel to speak to a shop that had numerous dogs that were disturbing and harassing everyone the owner more or less just said to fxxxk off ... the same happens in the pi as well ...people seem to enjoy it when their dog is annoying or frightening people

These dogs are pets, that's why the owner "more of less just said to fxxxk off". It's wild like you're just going to have to get used to - they're not going anywhere.

[Ohio]

the number of wild stray dogs in Thailand puts them up there with vermin and they should be treated and eradicated as such (flame time )

Yes.. Round them up and put them down ( humanely ) Can we add to these all the badly cared for dogs that howl all night and the dogs that lazy owner let out to defecate in the moobahn around 6am everyday.. Oh and don't forget the dogs that clueless farangs buy for their 'girlfriend' who then abandons it once she is bored and the puppy is no longer 'cute'

I'm amazed that so many self professed 'dog lovers' take such little care of their animals.

I am assuming 'put them down humanely' refers to the dogs not the fervebt Farangs ??

the number of wild stray dogs in Thailand puts them up there with vermin and they should be treated and eradicated as such (flame time )

Yes.. Round them up and put them down ( humanely ) Can we add to these all the badly cared for dogs that howl all night and the dogs that lazy owner let out to defecate in the moobahn around 6am everyday.. Oh and don't forget the dogs that clueless farangs buy for their 'girlfriend' who then abandons it once she is bored and the puppy is no longer 'cute'

I'm amazed that so many self professed 'dog lovers' take such little care of their animals.

I am assuming by 'put them down Humanely ' you are referring to the dogs & not the Fervent farangs ??

[Ohyesuare]

I used to feed the dogs in my last apartment that claimed it as their territory, they were eating out of the garbage bin anyway and it made them less aggressive towards me so I don't think I was a part of the problem or solution. I mostly fed a female one who was always picked on by the other dogs in the pack and was very friendly towards me.

[23962323]

You will find it incredibly difficult to find any veterinarian in Thailand who will put down an animal, regardless of how bad it's condition is. They just won't do it, I believe for religious reasons.

This is a fallacy - there are plenty of vets - they don't like to publicise because of the buddhist resistance to this.

may I suggest therefore that hose wishing to rescue animals first find a vet willing to euthanise.

You just substantiated Phil's 'fallacy'. Whether the vet won't do if 'for religious reasons' or whether the vet is reluctant to publicise their willingness to euthanize because of 'buddhist resistance' is the same thing.

First thing to note; the karma principle prevails here. That mangy, one-eyed dog is probably someone who did bad things in their previous life so why on earth would you want to ease their suffering?

I think the thinking is if you look after a dog in this lifetime,the dog will look after you in the next lifetime.

Anyway, the vet asked me yesterday if I wanted to to the deed,my dog had had its day,only a youngster,but had infection that could not be treated,said OK,the port already installed into her leg,put the syringe into the port and squeezed slowly vet listening with stethoscope until heart beat stopped,sad ,but what a way to go

[Cantankerous]

Every dog owners responsibility to keep their mutt under control and clean up after it, Thai or farang. Local government responsibility for "soi dogs". I had a problem with a neighbors dog using my garden for it's bowl movements, even asked the guy politely to either keep the dog in his property or take it out on a leash and clean up after it. Unfortunately the dog died shortly afterwards due to it's masters ignorance.

[cowslip]

the dogs r a real problem ...they have attacked people on numerous occasions i remember a japanese was ripped to pieces in jomtien and needed hundreds of stitches ...the dogs should be rounded up and quietly seen to ...i know this will offend a lot of people ....the thais dont seem to give a flying .............was in a jewellery store on beach rd once and the store dog actually bit a customer ...fxxxxken unbelievable ....she had just bought an expensive piece ...the owner just sat there ...i asked my hotel to speak to a shop that had numerous dogs that were disturbing and harassing everyone the owner more or less just said to fxxxk off ... the same happens in the pi as well ...people seem to enjoy it when their dog is annoying or frightening people

As said many times a "cull" won't work. THere needs to be a sea change.

[tropo]

As said many times a "cull" won't work. THere needs to be a sea change.

You're telling me that if, hypothetically, you rounded up and killed every soi dog on a street you won't reduce the dog population?

Of course it would. Keep it up every couple of months and the streets would soon be dogless.

Anyway, this discussion is quite pointless as Thais will not condone you rounding up and killing their pets.

[cowslip]

You will find it incredibly difficult to find any veterinarian in Thailand who will put down an animal, regardless of how bad it's condition is. They just won't do it, I believe for religious reasons.

This is a fallacy - there are plenty of vets - they don't like to publicise because of the buddhist resistance to this.

may I suggest therefore that hose wishing to rescue animals first find a vet willing to euthanise.

You just substantiated Phil's 'fallacy'. Whether the vet won't do if 'for religious reasons' or whether the vet is reluctant to publicise their willingness to euthanize because of 'buddhist resistance' is the same thing.

First thing to note; the karma principle prevails here. That mangy, one-eyed dog is probably someone who did bad things in their previous life so why on earth would you want to ease their suffering?

Pity the OP spent all that time venting but hope he's feeling better and understands. Now, go outside and feed a cur. It may not be the right thing to do but it certainly is the Thai thing to do.

Tropo - You have made some good illustrations here of a type of argument that is frequently used on threads in TV. Essentially it is an argument that is either fallacious or sophistic in nature.

For example..... If I were to say that dogs have 4 legs, you’d be hard pushed to disagree with this. But, if I then surmise that as my cat has for legs it must be a dog, I doubt that you’d agree.

The conclusion has been reached only by ignoring many other factors that are useful in identifying a cat. i.e. it is seldom possible to submit a cohesive argument based on one premise alone. yet you have doe his several times on this thread alone.

E.g. - when it comes to your conclusion “You just substantiated Phil's 'fallacy'. Whether the vet won't do if 'for religious reasons' or whether the vet is reluctant to publicize their willingness to euthanize because of 'Buddhist resistance' is the same thing.”

You are making a fallacious argument as the factors surrounding the availability of vets is not necessarily limited to the premise “all vets are Buddhist” - “no Buddhist will take a life” - it is way more complicated than that.... and the end result is that your premises have little or no relevance to the points I’ve been trying to make and certainly don’t seem to address any of the issues.

Then your argument turns distinctly sophistic in a subsequent post when you suggest,

“You're telling me that if, hypothetically, you rounded up and killed every Soi dog on a street you won't reduce the dog population?” -

which again - and this is what makes it particularly Sophistic - deliberately ignores the other factors to create a mischievous argument. I don’t think you realise what this thread is about - or how to use a “hypothetical argument.

Re culling - One factor being that when a cull was undertaken in Bkk it was banned by the local authorities.

Finally there is the premise that eating dogs in the Philippines has reduced the dog population - tell me was it ever as overpopulated as Thailand?...or can we conclude that we are talking about a relatively small stray dog (we can’t call them Soi dogs in Philippines) population that has existed for decades or centuries. As the eating of dogs also exists in Thailand, would they not have “got a taste” by now etc. etc. - as you see there are many other factors involved.

There is one subtle discrepancy in your arguments though, the Sophists had a reputation for being highly intelligent.

[Spalpeen]

I see that the police up in the North East have rescued another 700 dogs bound for Vietnam, leaving them with about 2,000 now in their possession. If anyone thinks their Soi could use a few more dogs, just contact the police at Nakhon Phanom, who will be glad to oblige.

[tropo]

You will find it incredibly difficult to find any veterinarian in Thailand who will put down an animal, regardless of how bad it's condition is. They just won't do it, I believe for religious reasons.

This is a fallacy - there are plenty of vets - they don't like to publicise because of the buddhist resistance to this.

may I suggest therefore that hose wishing to rescue animals first find a vet willing to euthanise.

You just substantiated Phil's 'fallacy'. Whether the vet won't do if 'for religious reasons' or whether the vet is reluctant to publicise their willingness to euthanize because of 'buddhist resistance' is the same thing.

First thing to note; the karma principle prevails here. That mangy, one-eyed dog is probably someone who did bad things in their previous life so why on earth would you want to ease their suffering?

Pity the OP spent all that time venting but hope he's feeling better and understands. Now, go outside and feed a cur. It may not be the right thing to do but it certainly is the Thai thing to do.

Tropo - You have made some good illustrations here of a type of argument that is frequently used on threads in TV. Essentially it is an argument that is either fallacious or sophistic in nature.

For example..... If I were to say that dogs have 4 legs, you’d be hard pushed to disagree with this. But, if I then surmise that as my cat has for legs it must be a dog, I doubt that you’d agree.

The conclusion has been reached only by ignoring many other factors that are useful in identifying a cat. i.e. it is seldom possible to submit a cohesive argument based on one premise alone. yet you have doe his several times on this thread alone.

E.g. - when it comes to your conclusion “You just substantiated Phil's 'fallacy'. Whether the vet won't do if 'for religious reasons' or whether the vet is reluctant to publicize their willingness to euthanize because of 'Buddhist resistance' is the same thing.”

You are making a fallacious argument as the factors surrounding the availability of vets is not necessarily limited to the premise “all vets are Buddhist” - “no Buddhist will take a life” - it is way more complicated than that.... and the end result is that your premises have little or no relevance to the points I’ve been trying to make and certainly don’t seem to address any of the issues.

Then your argument turns distinctly sophistic in a subsequent post when you suggest,

“You're telling me that if, hypothetically, you rounded up and killed every Soi dog on a street you won't reduce the dog population?” -

which again - and this is what makes it particularly Sophistic - deliberately ignores the other factors to create a mischievous argument. I don’t think you realise what this thread is about - or how to use a “hypothetical argument.

Re culling - One factor being that when a cull was undertaken in Bkk it was banned by the local authorities.

Finally there is the premise that eating dogs in the Philippines has reduced the dog population - tell me was it ever as overpopulated as Thailand?...or can we conclude that we are talking about a relatively small stray dog (we can’t call them Soi dogs in Philippines) population that has existed for decades or centuries. As the eating of dogs also exists in Thailand, would they not have “got a taste” by now etc. etc. - as you see there are many other factors involved.

There is one subtle discrepancy in your arguments though, the Sophists had a reputation for being highly intelligent.

This reply is a fine example of what we call "baffling with bs".

You're running around in circles trying to win an argument rather than seeing plain logic.

I didn't post about this:

"E.g. - when it comes to your conclusion “You just substantiated Phil's 'fallacy'. Whether the vet won't do if 'for religious reasons' or whether the vet is reluctant to publicize their willingness to euthanize because of 'Buddhist resistance' is the same thing.”

You are making a fallacious argument as the factors surrounding the availability of vets is not necessarily limited to the premise “all vets are Buddhist” - “no Buddhist will take a life” - it is way more complicated than that.... and the end result is that your premises have little or no relevance to the points I’ve been trying to make and certainly don’t seem to address any of the issues."

Please pay attention. That "fallacious argument" belongs to a different member.

The bottom line is that Thais don't eat them, they don't kill them, they feed them, they like them. Soi dogs are here to stay.

What is "fallacious" about this?

[cowslip]

T - My mistake - but sadly you have predictably failed to realise that it really doesn't matter who made that particular post as it was one of many examples - the argument still stands and as if to underline my point - you've done it again!

[puuchai299]

Seems you are a very dogmatic character Cowslip.

[tropo]

T - My mistake - but sadly you have predictably failed to realise that it really doesn't matter who made that particular post as it was one of many examples - the argument still stands and as if to underline my point - you've done it again!

Your argument makes no sense at all. You're trying to take a simple situation and complicate it.

What was that about dogs and cats both having 4 legs? That was brilliant.

[MrZM]

To be honest I'm fed up of westerners feeding the dogs, it bring shit to the bars etc.

And all of a sudden the dog dies, is t it funny how the "owner" suddenly appears!

[cowslip]

I am saddened, so now I am off to find the culprits lawns--well - you know what I am going to do!

Wilfred - beware, I'll send you to Nambour

[cowslip]

Seems you are a very dogmatic character Cowslip.

Better to be dogmatic than catatonic?

[puuchai299]

Seems you are a very dogmatic character Cowslip.

Better to be dogmatic than catatonic?

I thought this topic was about dogs? not cats. lol.....

[Phil Conners]

I think this topic has run it's course.