Should Dogs Be Kept Off Of Public Areas, Nationwide, Except When Leashed?

Toxocariasis: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Toxocariasis

More of a risk from malaria and dengue fever. Should mosquitos be kept off public areas!

While they're at it, they should also ban crabs from pubic areas.

Toxocariasis: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Toxocariasis

Putting dogs on a leash doesn't stop them shitting! At best, the owner can guide them to a preferred spot, but this would have no effect on the potential to carry toxocariasis.

The main arguments I can see for putting dogs on a leash are the safety of pedestrians who might be at risk of being bitten, and the possibility of road accidents caused by dogs running loose. The owner should know well enough whether or not his dog is a potential danger, and take measures accordingly. If he doesn't know his dog well, he's not fit to be its owner.

And then there are the soi dogs.......

Crabs with eight or two legs? If it's two that would mean that a lot of us "old Farts" would be banned!

Toxocariasis: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Toxocariasis

Putting dogs on a leash doesn't stop them shitting! At best, the owner can guide them to a preferred spot, but this would have no effect on the potential to carry toxocariasis.

The main arguments I can see for putting dogs on a leash are the safety of pedestrians who might be at risk of being bitten, and the possibility of road accidents caused by dogs running loose. The owner should know well enough whether or not his dog is a potential danger, and take measures accordingly. If he doesn't know his dog well, he's not fit to be its owner.

And then there are the soi dogs.......

Understand your reservations about shitting. Hopefully if a dog owner is responsible enough to leash his dog then he should pick up the poop as well. I do. Soi dogs are still dogs so are included in this survey. Ownership of course will come into question. IMO if nobody claims ownership then it belongs to the local authority and should be for them to deal with. Again IMO anybody seen feeding a soi dog becomes its owner.

More of a risk from malaria and dengue fever. Should mosquitos be kept off public areas!

There are creams, lotions and sprays that can protect you from mosquito bites. There are deterrents such as pepper spray, tasers and sticks that can be used against a dog attack. IMO mosquitoes too should also be kept away from public area by spraying, but that is not part of this poll. Please create your own.

Toxocariasis: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Toxocariasis

Putting dogs on a leash doesn't stop them shitting! At best, the owner can guide them to a preferred spot, but this would have no effect on the potential to carry toxocariasis.

The main arguments I can see for putting dogs on a leash are the safety of pedestrians who might be at risk of being bitten, and the possibility of road accidents caused by dogs running loose. The owner should know well enough whether or not his dog is a potential danger, and take measures accordingly. If he doesn't know his dog well, he's not fit to be its owner.

And then there are the soi dogs.......

Understand your reservations about shitting. Hopefully if a dog owner is responsible enough to leash his dog then he should pick up the poop as well. I do. Soi dogs are still dogs so are included in this survey. Ownership of course will come into question. IMO if nobody claims ownership then it belongs to the local authority and should be for them to deal with. Again IMO anybody seen feeding a soi dog becomes its owner.

My original post was to inform about toxocariasis. I made no comment about leashes, but believe that any owner walking his dog on a leash is much more likely to stop it shitting in the middle of an area where kids may play or, as Keesters suggests, may even pick up the poo - although the latter is very unlikely in Thailand.

A farang friend of mine used to follow his huge dog around with plastic gloves and bags waiting for it to poo in the road as there was not a single blade of grass in the housing development. But after a few months he stopped because all the Thais thought he was a loony to do it.

At another place I lived there was a lovely green rest area that I lived adjacent to which had a kids play area. Nearly all my neighbours had dogs - from the stupid little yappy poodles to big golden retrievers. Every day the neighbours would let their dogs out simply to go crap somewhere else and not in their gardens. I had to keep a look out for when these dogs came down my soi and would throw things at them to stop them shitting in the grass in front of my garden wall. Once, I even had to kick next door's dog as he was starting to dump to get it to go somewhere else.

But the memory that sticks in my mind is just after the grass was cut opposite my house. A lovely smell of freshly cut grass permeated the area in the late afternoon, lots of young kids - 2 to 5 years old - were running around, falling down and having a great time. Then I heard next door's gate open, out comes the fat dog who goes on to the grass and does a huge dump right where the kids were playing.

A farang friend of mine used to follow his huge dog around with plastic gloves and bags waiting for it to poo in the road as there was not a single blade of grass in the housing development. But after a few months he stopped because all the Thais thought he was a loony to do it.

I've reduced the quotes to the bit I'm interested in.

My dog often has a poop when I take her for a walk. I too suffer from little nearby wasteland where she could do this and I could leave it as "fertilizer". I pick it up using the same method as described above disposing of it, well wrapped and tightly sealed with 3 or 4 knots in the next public garbage bin. I have yet to find a Pooper Scooper here. The Thais may think I'm loony but they always thank me for not leaving poop on their doorstep. Some have even been kind enough to offer a drink and like to chat while they and/or their children pet my Loveable Labrador.

Intestinal fortatude! Chicken! Well.....

I voted NO, but as usual, the thread has wondered off topic to dog poop rather than whether they should be leashed. Whether or not they poop in public areas or whether their owner's clean it up has nothing to do with being on leashes. If they gota go, they gota go, leash or no leash.

Whether or not a dog needs to be on a leash or not comes down to proper training. I have raised Golden retrievers and have had up to 23 dogs, I currently only have 11, not all Goldens. They are not penned and have free run of my house and property, which is not fenced except for certain areas, carport, back patio, etc.. They are trained to stay on my property and do not go anywhere unless they are told. We walk twice a day, all 12 of us, but I live in the "boonies" in the last house on a dirt road in the middle of sugar cane and corn. The main reason for the walk is for them to relieve themselves. I really don't care if they poop in the sugar and corn fields since one of the main fertilizers is chicken poop. When they do poop in my yard or have accidents in public areas, mainly the street, I clean it up using a homemade "pooper scooper"' , a long handled metal dust bin and a wide paint scraper. I think that I only have 2 or 3 leashes.

If the dog is properly trained, he shouldn't have to be on a leash, and if the owner is properly trained, there wouldn't be pliles of poop in public areas! If neither one is properly trained maybe they both should be on a leash!

Not chicken. Dogs should be able to run free, as long as they come back when called! It is not fair on a dog for it to be continually restrained.

For those unfortunate enough to live in a city, where would you suggest their dogs get their exercise, running down the road?

Obviously it would be better if the owners cleaned up after their dogs, but do you really want to live in a society full of petty restrictions, there are many more important things to worry about. Like price of petrol going up again tomorrow!

Intestinal fortatude! Chicken! Well.....

I voted NO, but as usual, the thread has wondered off topic to dog poop rather than whether they should be leashed. Whether or not they poop in public areas or whether their owner's clean it up has nothing to do with being on leashes. If they gota go, they gota go, leash or no leash.

Whether or not a dog needs to be on a leash or not comes down to proper training. I have raised Golden retrievers and have had up to 23 dogs, I currently only have 11, not all Goldens. They are not penned and have free run of my house and property, which is not fenced except for certain areas, carport, back patio, etc.. They are trained to stay on my property and do not go anywhere unless they are told. We walk twice a day, all 12 of us, but I live in the "boonies" in the last house on a dirt road in the middle of sugar cane and corn. The main reason for the walk is for them to relieve themselves. I really don't care if they poop in the sugar and corn fields since one of the main fertilizers is chicken poop. When they do poop in my yard or have accidents in public areas, mainly the street, I clean it up using a homemade "pooper scooper"' , a long handled metal dust bin and a wide paint scraper. I think that I only have 2 or 3 leashes.

If the dog is properly trained, he shouldn't have to be on a leash, and if the owner is properly trained, there wouldn't be pliles of poop in public areas! If neither one is properly trained maybe they both should be on a leash!

Perhaps you should have voted for the third option. It seems that you have never tried to take a dog for a walk in a busy urban area. Whether or not my trained dog is leashed is immaterial it is all the unleashed dogs that are the problem. They come for me and mine as they see us crossing their territory. But it is not their territory it is PUBLIC territory. However if all dogs were leashed this would not happen as I'd be able to work my way around staying out of jaws reach of the tethered monsters.

I take my dog once a week to the boonies (a large beach) where she can run freely. The leash is kept on so I can restrain her should the need arise. I do not take my eyes of her.

Not chicken. Dogs should be able to run free, as long as they come back when called! It is not fair on a dog for it to be continually restrained.

For those unfortunate enough to live in a city, where would you suggest their dogs get their exercise, running down the road?

Obviously it would be better if the owners cleaned up after their dogs, but do you really want to live in a society full of petty restrictions, there are many more important things to worry about. Like price of petrol going up again tomorrow!

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Dogs should be able to run free

where would you suggest their dogs get their exercise, running down the road?

Running down the road surely is running free. I don't get what you're on about.

As for the poop please PM me your address so I can come and dump some on your doorstep as you don't seem to mind being more concerned about the price of petrol than the health dangers of dog poop all over the place.

P.S. I do not consider myself unfortunate because I live in a city. I chose to live that way. I feel extremely fortunate to have modern conveniences like hospitals, cinemas, shopping malls all within a few minutes walk. I do not have to use up some of the worlds resources, oil, to make use of any of these by driving there. In doing so I am also not causing pollution for others to breathe in. If I can't get there by foot I don't go.

I was being sarcastic, obviously wasted on you! Also you missed the clause where I said that it would be better if owners cleaned up after their dogs.

I think there are much greater dangers in the world than stepping in a bit of dog shit.

I voted NO (and partially explained my vote).

One of the reasons why I find this poll unsatisfactory is that it is too simplistic. For example, when I had an Alsatian bitch in Hong Kong, she would have disdained any suggestion of a lead except in extremely congested areas. She walked straight along the pavement, taking no notice of other dogs, waited when I waited, and walked when I walked. On the hillside, where she could run free, she did. In Chiangmai, my dogs walked on a leash along the roads, and ran free when they got to a park area (they pooped in the rough area by the side of the road, not in the park). The Bangkaew was never allowed to run free, alas, because he was uncontrollable (I'm not really the kind of person to have a Bangkaew, which is not an easy dog to control).

So should I have answered YES or NO? A bit of both, really.

I was being sarcastic, obviously wasted on you! Also you missed the clause where I said that it would be better if owners cleaned up after their dogs.

I think there are much greater dangers in the world than stepping in a bit of dog shit.

Sarcasm is wasted on a lot of people. I did not miss your point about poop. It just seemed to me that you had little interest in the enactment of a law for the benefit of public health but more interested in the personal increase in cost to you of petrol. I do not see the increase in the price of petrol as a danger whereas the diseases that can be caught from dog poop are.

I voted NO (and partially explained my vote).

One of the reasons why I find this poll unsatisfactory is that it is too simplistic. For example, when I had an Alsatian bitch in Hong Kong, she would have disdained any suggestion of a lead except in extremely congested areas. She walked straight along the pavement, taking no notice of other dogs, waited when I waited, and walked when I walked. On the hillside, where she could run free, she did. In Chiangmai, my dogs walked on a leash along the roads, and ran free when they got to a park area (they pooped in the rough area by the side of the road, not in the park). The Bangkaew was never allowed to run free, alas, because he was uncontrollable (I'm not really the kind of person to have a Bangkaew, which is not an easy dog to control).

So should I have answered YES or NO? A bit of both, really.

While your HK dog may be able to walk unleashed ignoring any other dog I'm not so sure that all those other dogs would ignore her. Any requirement therefore to leash dogs has to apply to all dogs even those that may not require it.

I might suggest that option 3 would have been a better choice for you. URBAN areas only require leashes, RURAL anything goes. I did that to remove the simplistic nature of a YES/NO only choice. It does give a bit of both.

Notice a few NO votes here but nobody with the guts to explain why they vote that way. Chicken...

“No” because you seem to be including all dogs, not just pets, which I think is the typical westerner’s mistake here.

For example, there are still unowned dingoes running around the villages of Thailand as they have been doing for thousands of years (although they are fast disappearing through hybridisation with domestic dogs). It’s a fascinating cultural and historical human-canine relationship that quite possibly harkens back to the early days of domestication but would be wiped away in one fell swoop with the “yes” option. When it comes to dogs, eastern culture is much less pet-centric and I want to fight against the imported “all dogs should be owned” attitude ubiquitous amongst foreigners and unfortunately becoming more prevalent amongst western-influenced Thais.

Option 3 was a possibility but I still believe that controlling pets, which in my experience are the most aggressive and noisiest dogs around, would leave room for dingoes and other village dogs. If I ever win the argument and convince everybody that there is a real difference between pets and free-ranging village dogs then I believe the traditional model can even work in urban environments therefore I voted “no”.

If the poll was “Should pet dogs be kept off…” then I would have voted “yes”.

I encourage everybody to check their assumptions.

I voted no as very simplistically there are times when "public" areas are empty so it is not a problem even with perhaps a less than perfectly well behaved dog.

I also cannot see how you would expect all dogs to be leashed, as you mention in post #14, here in Thailand.

Any specific reason for posting the poll?

Notice a few NO votes here but nobody with the guts to explain why they vote that way. Chicken...

“No” because you seem to be including all dogs, not just pets, which I think is the typical westerner’s mistake here.

For example, there are still unowned dingoes running around the villages of Thailand as they have been doing for thousands of years (although they are fast disappearing through hybridisation with domestic dogs). It’s a fascinating cultural and historical human-canine relationship that quite possibly harkens back to the early days of domestication but would be wiped away in one fell swoop with the “yes” option. When it comes to dogs, eastern culture is much less pet-centric and I want to fight against the imported “all dogs should be owned” attitude ubiquitous amongst foreigners and unfortunately becoming more prevalent amongst western-influenced Thais.

Option 3 was a possibility but I still believe that controlling pets, which in my experience are the most aggressive and noisiest dogs around, would leave room for dingoes and other village dogs. If I ever win the argument and convince everybody that there is a real difference between pets and free-ranging village dogs then I believe the traditional model can even work in urban environments therefore I voted “no”.

If the poll was “Should pet dogs be kept off…” then I would have voted “yes”.

I encourage everybody to check their assumptions.

The dingo is a free-roaming wild dog unique to the continent of Australia

not Thailand. The free-roaming wild dogs of Thailand are mixed breed mutts. Notice the term WILD. WILD dies not belong in modern, congested, urban areas. When one of these wild, perhaps rabid, bites you or your child I suspect you would change your opinion. of course there is a difference between pets and free-ranging village dogs. The former has or should have (I too can dream) a responsible owner to take care of it. The later is a menace to society, pissing and shitting wherever it feels like it spreading disease. It is a hazard to traffic and pedestrians alike.

I voted no as very simplistically there are times when "public" areas are empty so it is not a problem even with perhaps a less than perfectly well behaved dog.

I also cannot see how you would expect all dogs to be leashed, as you mention in post #14, here in Thailand.

Any specific reason for posting the poll?

I understand what you mean and yes I do let my dog roam freely, but monitored, in deserted areas. However to say that because that is OK, no dog should not be leashed while in a housing estate, town or city is unreasonable. It would IMO be better to have a requirement to leash dogs everywhere but then remove that requirement in "dog parks". That "dog park" may be a beach or wasteland but should the dog become a nuisance to anybody it should immediately be leashed. To write a poll with so many questions so as to satisfy your requirement would be difficult and unwieldy. Perhaps item 3 in the poll would be a better choice for your vote where rural would include those empty public areas.

I posted the poll to find out if other people thought the same way as I. With it currently being 11 to 7 it seems they do.

Do you have any specific reason for answering the poll or posting here?

Notice a few NO votes here but nobody with the guts to explain why they vote that way. Chicken...

“No” because you seem to be including all dogs, not just pets, which I think is the typical westerner’s mistake here.

For example, there are still unowned dingoes running around the villages of Thailand as they have been doing for thousands of years (although they are fast disappearing through hybridisation with domestic dogs). It’s a fascinating cultural and historical human-canine relationship that quite possibly harkens back to the early days of domestication but would be wiped away in one fell swoop with the “yes” option. When it comes to dogs, eastern culture is much less pet-centric and I want to fight against the imported “all dogs should be owned” attitude ubiquitous amongst foreigners and unfortunately becoming more prevalent amongst western-influenced Thais.

Option 3 was a possibility but I still believe that controlling pets, which in my experience are the most aggressive and noisiest dogs around, would leave room for dingoes and other village dogs. If I ever win the argument and convince everybody that there is a real difference between pets and free-ranging village dogs then I believe the traditional model can even work in urban environments therefore I voted “no”.

If the poll was “Should pet dogs be kept off…” then I would have voted “yes”.

I encourage everybody to check their assumptions.

The dingo is a free-roaming wild dog unique to the continent of Australia

not Thailand. The free-roaming wild dogs of Thailand are mixed breed mutts. Notice the term WILD. WILD dies not belong in modern, congested, urban areas. When one of these wild, perhaps rabid, bites you or your child I suspect you would change your opinion. of course there is a difference between pets and free-ranging village dogs. The former has or should have (I too can dream) a responsible owner to take care of it. The later is a menace to society, pissing and shitting wherever it feels like it spreading disease. It is a hazard to traffic and pedestrians alike.

The dingo originated in south-east Asia and went feral in Australia having been taken there by early travellers. It still exists in Thailand. I recommend “The Dingo in Australia and Asia” by Laurie Corbett. The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) also recognises them as native to Asia. But it’s true, not many people know this.

Is there something wrong with being a “mixed breed mutt”?

I have looked at this with open eyes and am absolutely convinced that if I get bitten by a dog in Thailand it is far, far, far more likely to be a pet on the loose. They have been socialised to people, which is absolutely necessary for a dog to be a good pet but does mean they look at human strangers in the same way they would look at strange dogs – as a social threat – and thereby confront them. A dog born to the street is familiar with people but doesn’t see an unknown person as a psuedo-dog. They might still be aggressive if they feel physically threatened in some way but not socially threatened. In my experience pets are much more menacing.

However, abandoned pets and pets on the loose make it a very confused situation.

There is no reason why unowned village dogs, which are already valued by many human residents, can’t be given healthcare but the sheer numbers that are largely fuelled by pet abandonment makes this difficult.

“Wild” isn’t how I would describe these animals but I know it’s a very deliberate choice of language on your part. But as an aside: of course there is space for wild in a city like Bangkok and it would be a worse place without the birds, bats, reptiles, amphibians and insects.

Perhaps the one point we can agree on is that pet dogs need responsible owners and I believe we should focus on that problem (and let’s include the pet trade here as well because I suspect many unsold puppy farm puppies also end up on the street). Our difference is that you think ALL dogs need responsible owners whereas I don’t because I recognise a difference in the age-old local culture and have managed to see past my ingrained western perspective.

“No” because you seem to be including all dogs, not just pets, which I think is the typical westerner’s mistake here.

For example, there are still unowned dingoes running around the villages of Thailand as they have been doing for thousands of years (although they are fast disappearing through hybridisation with domestic dogs). It’s a fascinating cultural and historical human-canine relationship that quite possibly harkens back to the early days of domestication but would be wiped away in one fell swoop with the “yes” option. When it comes to dogs, eastern culture is much less pet-centric and I want to fight against the imported “all dogs should be owned” attitude ubiquitous amongst foreigners and unfortunately becoming more prevalent amongst western-influenced Thais.

Option 3 was a possibility but I still believe that controlling pets, which in my experience are the most aggressive and noisiest dogs around, would leave room for dingoes and other village dogs. If I ever win the argument and convince everybody that there is a real difference between pets and free-ranging village dogs then I believe the traditional model can even work in urban environments therefore I voted “no”.

If the poll was “Should pet dogs be kept off…” then I would have voted “yes”.

I encourage everybody to check their assumptions.

The dingo is a free-roaming wild dog unique to the continent of Australia

not Thailand. The free-roaming wild dogs of Thailand are mixed breed mutts. Notice the term WILD. WILD dies not belong in modern, congested, urban areas. When one of these wild, perhaps rabid, bites you or your child I suspect you would change your opinion. of course there is a difference between pets and free-ranging village dogs. The former has or should have (I too can dream) a responsible owner to take care of it. The later is a menace to society, pissing and shitting wherever it feels like it spreading disease. It is a hazard to traffic and pedestrians alike.

The dingo originated in south-east Asia and went feral in Australia having been taken there by early travellers. It still exists in Thailand. I recommend “The Dingo in Australia and Asia” by Laurie Corbett. The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) also recognises them as native to Asia. But it’s true, not many people know this.

Is there something wrong with being a “mixed breed mutt”?

I have looked at this with open eyes and am absolutely convinced that if I get bitten by a dog in Thailand it is far, far, far more likely to be a pet on the loose. They have been socialised to people, which is absolutely necessary for a dog to be a good pet but does mean they look at human strangers in the same way they would look at strange dogs – as a social threat – and thereby confront them. A dog born to the street is familiar with people but doesn’t see an unknown person as a psuedo-dog. They might still be aggressive if they feel physically threatened in some way but not socially threatened. In my experience pets are much more menacing.

However, abandoned pets and pets on the loose make it a very confused situation.

There is no reason why unowned village dogs, which are already valued by many human residents, can’t be given healthcare but the sheer numbers that are largely fuelled by pet abandonment makes this difficult.

“Wild” isn’t how I would describe these animals but I know it’s a very deliberate choice of language on your part. But as an aside: of course there is space for wild in a city like Bangkok and it would be a worse place without the birds, bats, reptiles, amphibians and insects.

Perhaps the one point we can agree on is that pet dogs need responsible owners and I believe we should focus on that problem (and let’s include the pet trade here as well because I suspect many unsold puppy farm puppies also end up on the street). Our difference is that you think ALL dogs need responsible owners whereas I don’t because I recognise a difference in the age-old local culture and have managed to see past my ingrained western perspective.

You may well be right about the dingoes but just how many of them still exist here? Most are mixed-breed mutts. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I never said there was. I have adopted many of them and turned them into loyal and loving family pets.

The unowned village dogs SHOULD be given healthcare. There is no justifiable reason for not doing so. Sheer numbers is not a valid excuse. To not vaccinate against rabies and the many other diseases that dogs carry is pure foolishness and a danger not only to the dogs but to the human population as well. If the numbers get out of control, as many believe they have, then cull them.

I used the term wild because that was how my source on dingoes (which is what you called all free roaming dogs in Thailand) described them. It was not deliberate. You certainly can't call these free-roaming dogs domesticated. It takes a lot of patience and hard work to domesticate a free-roaming dog especially if it is an adult. I have succeeded with puppies but never adults. They create so many problems wanting to go back out into the street with their pack. Birds, bats, reptiles, amphibians and insects may all be wild but how many of them, mosquitoes excluded, bite humans, run into traffic causing accidents, guard what they consider their territory so fiercely that a responsible pet owner cannot pass with his dog unhindered.

If we are to allow free-roaming dogs, pets and wild alike, in Thailand who may at any time attack humans then why not allow a few Tigers as well. We don't because we know it to be foolish. Now is the time to think the same way about dogs. We can continue to love our dogs but let's keep them behind our gates or on leashes while given them exercise.

I do not have an ingrained western perspective on dogs. During my time there I never owned a dog, did not have friends who had dogs, very rarely saw a dog. Therefore gained no perspective on dogs. My time with dogs has been here in Thailand where I have spent half my life. It is my observations here and only here that influences my reasoning on the behavior of dogs and their owners. During that time my perspective has changed. I have seen human population increase 10 or more fold where I live. The dog population has probably increased more. Traffic is now fast and rapid. 20 years ago most were on bicycle or foot. Now it is cars, trucks, motorbikes. The increase in accidents and injuries caused by free-roaming dogs has increased. We as humans, the top of the food chain, who built these cities for us to work and live in need to take back control of our streets and rid them of the wild free-roaming canines.

P.S. Might I suggest that you refrain from trying to guess why I wrote something that way, or where is is my ideas come from, as in all cases you have been wrong. It does not help in strengthening your, IMO weak, argument.

To answer your P.S. Your use of “mixed breed mutts” could easily have been as a derogatory term so I asked you a question (to many people it would be; to you apparently not; so fine, thanks for clearing that up). You chose to describe free-roaming dogs in Thailand as “wild” and then used that word to argue against them in urban areas – that’s not guessing on my part. Maybe they are not “domesticated” but typically these dogs have daily, friendly contact with people and therefore “tame” would be a far more accurate description than “wild”, which has more than one meaning. You seem to believe that all dogs should have an owner (please correct me if I’m wrong) and, however you ended up with that attitude, it is exactly how an ingrained western attitude would look (although I admit many Thai people probably do now also share it).

Pure dingo in Thailand? I don’t know. Possibly very few now (or even none), although up in the north out of the urban centres I have seen quite a few dogs that fit the description. It perhaps should be noted that their lifestyle in Thailand is not as in Australia, they are basically village dogs here. Whatever their genetics, the importance to me lies in the cultural lifestyle of unowned dogs living as part of human communities, which I believe should be understood for what it is, allowed to continue and valued. But as stated before it is hard to prise this away from pets on the loose and abandoned pets, which to me are the real problem.

Can I ask how you would vote in your poll? (I hesitate to guess but am fairly sure it wasn’t “No”!)

I'm all for keeping humans on a leash - after all, they are by far the biggest source of environmental damage.