Thailand Based Soi Dog Launches Bt550m Project to Sterilise Bangkok Street Dogs

[ClutchClark]

You, Sir, are whacky.

[cumgranosalum]

36 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

You, Sir, are whacky.

 

“whacky” - not a particularly reasoned argument - but just about what one would expect from someone with a firm grip on the wrong end of the stick ,though....

 

 The  World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), in line with WHO, in their paper on

Stray dog population control would beg to differ with your appraisal - in fact they don’t use the word “whacky” anywhere...

They define the Carrying capacity of an area as........” the upper limit of the dog population density that could be supported by the habitat based on the availability of resources (food, water, shelter), and human acceptance.”

 

Then continue - “The important factors relevant to the dog carrying capacity of the environment include food, shelter, water and human attitudes and behaviour.”

 And conclude.....”Steps should be taken to exclude dogs from sources of food (e.g. rubbish dumps and abattoirs, and installing animal-proof rubbish containers).

 

 “People don’t intentionally provide food, shelter or other needs of the animals, but the dogs often take advantage of municipal dumps where human garbage provides a food supply and shelter.  

“dogs were drawn together because of the more concentrated food sources.” - of course in Thailand this is all exacerbated by the mistaken belief in the name of “making merit”, throwing some rice at dogs is a good idea........

 as Gandhi said. “

“it is an insult to the starving dog to throw a crumb at him”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[MiKT]

37 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

 

“whacky” - not a particularly reasoned argument - but just about what one would expect from someone with a firm grip on the wrong end of the stick ,though....

 

 The  World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), in line with WHO, in their paper on

Stray dog population control would beg to differ with your appraisal - in fact they don’t use the word “whacky” anywhere...

They define the Carrying capacity of an area as........” the upper limit of the dog population density that could be supported by the habitat based on the availability of resources (food, water, shelter), and human acceptance.”

 

Then continue - “The important factors relevant to the dog carrying capacity of the environment include food, shelter, water and human attitudes and behaviour.”

 And conclude.....”Steps should be taken to exclude dogs from sources of food (e.g. rubbish dumps and abattoirs, and installing animal-proof rubbish containers).

 

 “People don’t intentionally provide food, shelter or other needs of the animals, but the dogs often take advantage of municipal dumps where human garbage provides a food supply and shelter.  

“dogs were drawn together because of the more concentrated food sources.” - of course in Thailand this is all exacerbated by the mistaken belief in the name of “making merit”, throwing some rice at dogs is a good idea........

 as Gandhi said. “

“it is an insult to the starving dog to throw a crumb at him”

 

 

 I don't think you are whacky, but the point in Thailand is that most "stray dogs" aren't truly stray (although there are plenty) however, it is the semi-stray, half looked after by a household or street vender (some of whom do actually get the dogs  they adopt vaccinated and keep them clean and well fed) but don't really accept full responsibility for them; which is the real problem. These kind, but wrongly minded people, even put collars on the dogs, so the municipal dog catchers cannot take them away without a big problem.

 

So the above statement  “People don’t intentionally provide food, shelter or other needs of the animals" is patently wrong in Thailand.

 

Paraphrasing the above source, "human attitudes and behavior" are the big problem in Thailand. So lets all do our bit to get this changed for the benefit of dogs and humans (well hopefully no benefits ever accrue for some of our "death to all" posters).

 

NB Gandhi may have been a great peace-bringer (debatable) but he sure knew nothing about dogs.

 

 

 

 

[cumgranosalum]

28 minutes ago, MiKT said:

 

I don't think you fully understand this post "“People don’t intentionally provide food, shelter or other needs of the animals" - this is talking about how animals access food in dumps and elsewhere - you will see that the feeding of rice etc to dogs is dealt with elsewhere.

 

I think your comment about Gandhi is fatuous and unsupported by any reasoning - it is an extremely pertinent remark especially when applied to Thai attitude to dogs. Unless you can demonstrate what is wrong with that remark your comment is worthless.

 

"Roving dogs do not indicate compassion and civilization in society; they betray instead the ignorance and lethargy of its members... that means we should keep them and treat them with respect as we do our companions and not allow them to roam about.” - Gandhi

 

rtghtyou like so many others struggle to define "stray dogs" - if you bothered to read ANY of the papers on "stray dogs" you'd see there is in fact a working definition for the dogs involved in the problem. 

essentially it doesn't quibble about the name it defines the problems caused by dogs - of various descriptions.

 

It seems to me that a lot of people commenting o=n this thread feel they can do so because they "have a dog" or "like dogs" and they feel that their unsubstantiated yet prejudged ideas are actually thought out opinions..unless you understand that this is a recognised worldwide problem that requires a scientific approach you aren't even in a position to start to comment.

 

the international definition is this.

 

If you are not aware of it how can you address tro comment on the problem - as you would simply not have a working definition for what you are talking about?

 

Stray dog

Article 7.7.2.

means any dog not under direct control by a person or not prevented from roaming.

Types of stray dog:

a) free-roaming owned dog not under direct control or restriction at a particular time;

 free-roaming dog with no owner;

c) feral dog: domestic dog that has reverted to the wild state and is no longer directly dependent upon humans for successful reproduction.

Owned dog

means a dog with a person that claims responsibility.

Person

this can include more than one individual, and could comprise family/household members or an organisation.

Responsible dog ownership

means the situation whereby a person (as defined above) accepts and commits to perform various duties according to the legislation in place and focused on the satisfaction of the behavioural, environmental and physical needs of a dog and to the prevention of risks (aggression, disease transmission or injuries) that the dog may pose to the community, other animals or the environment.

Edited August 3, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[cumgranosalum]

Actually I don't think that most people on this thread have even an inkling of thew facets this problem presents...

 

" The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there are more than 200 million stray dogs worldwide and that every year, 55,000 people die from rabies, while another 15 million receive post exposure treatment to avert the deadly disease. 95% of these cases occur in Asia and Africa, and 99% of the fatalities are caused by dogs. "

[Bickas]

Can someone advise me?

I have a neighbour who is doing a good thing in taking care of stray dogs within his home/yard.

The negative is that he now has 30 dogs in a contained area & the noise & stench is now causing problems.

I have/will talk to him but some back ground knowledge would be appreciated.

 

Regards

[cumgranosalum]

12 minutes ago, Bickas said:

Can someone advise me?

I have a neighbour who is doing a good thing in taking care of stray dogs within his home/yard.

The negative is that he now has 30 dogs in a contained area & the noise & stench is now causing problems.

I have/will talk to him but some back ground knowledge would be appreciated.

 

Regards

"who is doing a good thing" - well 
I'd say that is a matter for debate - he is creating a health hazard for a start and non-professionals looking after dogs is likely to be part of the problem, not the solution

[MiKT]

24 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

I don't think you fully understand this post "“People don’t intentionally provide food, shelter or other needs of the animals" - this is talking about how animals access food in dumps and elsewhere - you will see that the feeding of rice etc to dogs is dealt with elsewhere.

 

I think your comment about Gandhi is fatuous and unsupported by any reasoning - it is an extremely pertinent remark especially when applied to Thai attitude to dogs. Unless you can demonstrate what is wrong with that remark your comment is worthless.

 

"Roving dogs do not indicate compassion and civilization in society; they betray instead the ignorance and lethargy of its members... that means we should keep them and treat them with respect as we do our companions and not allow them to roam about.” - Gandhi

 

rtghtyou like so many others struggle to define "stray dogs" - if you bothered to read ANY of the papers on "stray dogs" you'd see there is in fact a working definition for the dogs involved in the problem. 

essentially it doesn't quibble about the name it defines the problems caused by dogs - of various descriptions.

 

It seems to me that a lot of people commenting o=n this thread feel they can do so because they "have a dog" or "like dogs" and they feel that their unsubstantiated yet prejudged ideas are actually thought out opinions..unless you understand that this is a recognised worldwide problem that requires a scientific approach you aren't even in a position to start to comment.

 

the international definition is this.

 

If you are not aware of it how can you address tro comment on the problem - as you would simply not have a working definition for what you are talking about?

 

Stray dog

Article 7.7.2.

means any dog not under direct control by a person or not prevented from roaming.

Types of stray dog:

a) free-roaming owned dog not under direct control or restriction at a particular time;

 free-roaming dog with no owner;

c) feral dog: domestic dog that has reverted to the wild state and is no longer directly dependent upon humans for successful reproduction.

Owned dog

means a dog with a person that claims responsibility.

Person

this can include more than one individual, and could comprise family/household members or an organisation.

Responsible dog ownership

means the situation whereby a person (as defined above) accepts and commits to perform various duties according to the legislation in place and focused on the satisfaction of the behavioural, environmental and physical needs of a dog and to the prevention of risks (aggression, disease transmission or injuries) that the dog may pose to the community, other animals or the environment.

 

I don't quite know why you are attacking me since my post was supportive of what you have said.

 

I simply pointed out that most stray dogs in Thailand are not real stray dogs;and actually if you care to double check your own post, do not fall into any of the categories defined under Article 7.7.2, which is why the problem of "soi dogs" (which is the actual title of this thread) are harder to deal with than the simplistic "kill them all" approach.

 

I have many dogs, but I don't claim to be an expert on stray/soi dog control, which is one reason why I have been urging posters to support the soi-dog control initiative which is the actual subject of this thread.

 

And yes, my comment  about Gandhi was intentionally fatuous, But it most certainly is supported by reason, partially because I do not buy that he was the ultimate "bringer of peaceful change to India" (ask any Muslim) and party because (and I would be only too unhappy to prove this to you) starving dogs do not turn up their nose at a few grains of rice. Neither do starving people.

 

Although the other quote of his about "Roving dogs" is most true and pertinent in Thailand (and all countries).

 

PS if you like dogs, I don't suggest you visit Bangladesh (where I am right now) if you ever do, you might actually view how Thai's treat dogs in a better light.

 

 

 

[Bickas]

Thanks cumgranosalum

I agree hence the question.

If I do not get a positive reception is their an authority I can go too?

Or the local government representative I assume.

 

Regards

[cumgranosalum]

22 minutes ago, Bickas said:

Thanks cumgranosalum

I agree hence the question.

If I do not get a positive reception is their an authority I can go too?

Or the local government representative I assume.

 

Regards

Depending on the area - i'd suggest either the police or a local Soi Dog foundation...the problem is you don't know who his "friends" are. I'd do a bit of research first.

 

THere are several examples on this thread alone of "do-gooders" who through their ignorance actually exacerbate the problem.

[cumgranosalum]

30 minutes ago, MiKT said:

 

I don't quite know why you are attacking me since my post was supportive of what you have said.

 

I simply pointed out that most stray dogs in Thailand are not real stray dogs;and actually if you care to double check your own post, do not fall into any of the categories defined under Article 7.7.2, which is why the problem of "soi dogs" (which is the actual title of this thread) are harder to deal with than the simplistic "kill them all" approach.

 

I have many dogs, but I don't claim to be an expert on stray/soi dog control, which is one reason why I have been urging posters to support the soi-dog control initiative which is the actual subject of this thread.

 

And yes, my comment  about Gandhi was intentionally fatuous, But it most certainly is supported by reason, partially because I do not buy that he was the ultimate "bringer of peaceful change to India" (ask any Muslim) and party because (and I would be only too unhappy to prove this to you) starving dogs do not turn up their nose at a few grains of rice. Neither do starving people.

 

Although the other quote of his about "Roving dogs" is most true and pertinent in Thailand (and all countries).

 

PS if you like dogs, I don't suggest you visit Bangladesh (where I am right now) if you ever do, you might actually view how Thai's treat dogs in a better light.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but you may have you heart in the right place but you appear to be totally devoid of critical thinking. I'm not attacking you at all -
I'm attacking the illogical  and spurious arguments that abound on this thread. Frankly I couldn't give a flying fig about who anybody is on this thread, i'm only interested in the arguments they are attempting to put foarwrd.

You clearly have no idea why I quoted Gandhi or the significance - it is there in black and white but you have tried to dichotomise the issue and launch an ad hominem attack on a quote of all things.

 

this seems to typify the blind ignorance that surrounds the whole dog issue in Thailand - people are not awAre of the facts and just make uyp their on hypotheses based on nothing more than their personal anecdotal experiences.

Edited August 3, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[MiKT]

4 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

 

I'm sorry but you may have you heart in the right place but you appear to be totally devoid of critical thinking. I'm not attacking you at all -
I'm attacking the illogical  and spurious arguments that abound on this thread. Frankly I couldn't give a flying fig about who anybody is on this thread, i'm only interested in the arguments they are attempting to put foarwrd.

You clearly have no idea why I quoted Gandhi or the significance - it is there in black and white but you have tried to dichotomise the issue and launch an ad hominem attack on a quote of all things.

 

this seems to typify the blind ignorance that surrounds the whole dog issue in Thailand - people are not awAre of the facts and just make uyp their on hypotheses based on nothing more than their personal anecdotal experiences.

 

 

Now you are simply making a fool of yourself, in thinking that others do not understand why you quoted Ghandi. Some of us know, but we don't have to pander to your illusions of moral supremacy.

 

Your other posts have been rational enough, but now it is you who is postulating  illogical  and spurious arguments.

 

Get back on track, its about the dogs not some half baked Indian mystic who did more harm than good in the partition of India.

 

And don't assume that you are the only one who has studied the problem. It has concerned me since I saw many starving stray dogs in HK 40 years ago. I just don't claim to be an expert. But I am an internationally acknowledged expert in my field, so I can manage a bit of critical thinking about stray dogs thanks.

 

Save your criticisms for the (only too many) dog haters here.

 

 

 

 

[MiKT]

1 hour ago, MiKT said:

 

 

Now you are simply making a fool of yourself, in thinking that others do not understand why you quoted Ghandi. Some of us know, but we don't have to pander to your illusions of moral supremacy.

 

Your other posts have been rational enough, but now it is you who is postulating  illogical  and spurious arguments.

 

Get back on track, its about the dogs not some half baked Indian mystic who did more harm than good in the partition of India.

 

And don't assume that you are the only one who has studied the problem. It has concerned me since I saw many starving stray dogs in HK 40 years ago. I just don't claim to be an expert. But I am an internationally acknowledged expert in my field, so I can manage a bit of critical thinking about stray dogs thanks.

 

Save your criticisms for the (only too many) dog haters here.

 

 

 

 

I forgot to add that you have ignored the most salient part of my post which was that soi dogs in Thailand do not fall into any of the categories defined under Article 7.7.2, which is why (contributes to the fact) there is still not a proven working method for dealing with the problem in Thailand.

 

It's all every well having theories, but if the problem does no fit the theory, it's not the problems fault. Find another theory that fits (ask Galileo, Newton, et al).

 

Also I cannot help adding that Ghandi had no real interest in actual stray dogs, his remarks were just an analogy of how he perceived the Raj treated its Indian subjects........................ Probably quite rightly given how real stay dogs are treated in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh even today.

 

 

[cumgranosalum]

44 minutes ago, MiKT said:

 

 

I forgot to add that you have ignored the most salient part of my post which was that soi dogs in Thailand do not fall into any of the categories defined under Article 7.7.2, which is why (contributes to the fact) there is still not a proven working method for dealing with the problem in Thailand.

 

It's all every well having theories, but if the problem does no fit the theory, it's not the problems fault. Find another theory that fits (ask Galileo, Newton, et al).

 

Also I cannot help adding that Ghandi had no real interest in actual stray dogs, his remarks were just an analogy of how he perceived the Raj treated its Indian subjects........................ Probably quite rightly given how real stay dogs are treated in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh even today.

 

 

QED

[MiKT]

37 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

QED

 

I am soooooo glad you are happily able to delude yourself that you have Demonstrated that you are "The Winner".

 

But no prizes for posters on this forum, so award yourself a gentle pat on the back from me. Do be gentle though, you wouldn't want to dislodge something that's a bit lose.

 

Pity you can't recognise a real dichotomy when you post one.

 

[ClutchClark]

7 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

 

“whacky” - not a particularly reasoned argument - but just about what one would expect from someone with a firm grip on the wrong end of the stick ,though....

 

 The  World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), in line with WHO, in their paper on

Stray dog population control would beg to differ with your appraisal - in fact they don’t use the word “whacky” anywhere...

They define the Carrying capacity of an area as........” the upper limit of the dog population density that could be supported by the habitat based on the availability of resources (food, water, shelter), and human acceptance.”

 

Then continue - “The important factors relevant to the dog carrying capacity of the environment include food, shelter, water and human attitudes and behaviour.”

 And conclude.....”Steps should be taken to exclude dogs from sources of food (e.g. rubbish dumps and abattoirs, and installing animal-proof rubbish containers).

 

 “People don’t intentionally provide food, shelter or other needs of the animals, but the dogs often take advantage of municipal dumps where human garbage provides a food supply and shelter.  

“dogs were drawn together because of the more concentrated food sources.” - of course in Thailand this is all exacerbated by the mistaken belief in the name of “making merit”, throwing some rice at dogs is a good idea........

 as Gandhi said. “

“it is an insult to the starving dog to throw a crumb at him”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I used the term whacky because the term I actually wanted to call you would have gotten me in trouble.

 

All you have to support your position is cut & paste articles--you have no practical, real world, hands on experience.

 

there is a great place for a guy with your type of experience--the lecture circuit.

 

Just as long as you are not part of the decision making process.

[ClutchClark]

8 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

CC has no idea of dog behaviour - he is sadly one of those "do gooders" who thinks that "loving dogs" is all that is needed - attitudes like this actually hinder solving the dog problem. Unfortunately people like this claim "experience" - what they actually mean is for years they have been virtually ineffective and barking up the wrong tree

ALL animal populations are in direct proportion to the food supply - it is nothing to do with packs of angry/hungry animals - dogs are prolific breeders and when the food supply is reduced the breeding rate goes down.

 

CC carefully avoids approaching the topic of how stray dogs dies - the truth is that most of then starve - they get to a point where for whatever reason they can't fed any more and then starve - it not pretty but it is a fact of life.  yes - I'm also aware that many dogs have a sudden and vilent death under the wheels of traffic - and cause many injuries to humans in the process.

 

.

 

You don't know the first thing about me, my motivation or my experience level you egotistical dimwit.

 

But I will help you out now...I had more experience with animals by the age of 10 than you have in your entire life. Its true you have read plenty of papers on the subject but your hands on experience appears to be about zilch based on the fact all you post are cut&paste and not any practical experience.

 

Having farmed my entire life and having worked for two State Agencies whose responsibility was Wildlife Management, I can tell you that your earlier post that dogs will not starve was ridiculous. I have to admit that you certsinly like to hear yourself talk and so I have skipped over some of your monologues about Ghandi (who I could care a less about). 

 

My single point to you was that your suggestion that cutting off food supplies to these stray dogs, would most definitely result in stsrvation and a hungry, unpredictable and aggressive stray dog population. 

 

That was my single point and has resulted in your above insulting comments. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by ClutchClark

[MobileContent]

In our Soi on Sukhumvit their are no more dogs as the taxi drivers have eaten them all. Not one dog for the past 2 years, Problems solved.

[Dagnabbit]

On 8/2/2016 at 3:53 AM, cumgranosalum said:

Culls do not work - it has been shown time and again. Just get used to it.

 

furthrermore if you were to kill all estimated 650,000 dogs roaming the streets of BKK alone - you have a carcass problem and all for no benefit whatsoever. 

get with it.....

 

The Culls that have failed around the world have done so because they were simply not thorough enough. 

 

Culling is vastly superior than attempts to neuter dogs.

 

There is no carcass problem except in your head. Landfill or cremation is fine.

[ClutchClark]

On August 1, 2016 at 6:11 PM, ClutchClark said:

 

As for starving the dogs, I hope you are joking. One thing Thailand does not need are 10's of 1,000's of starving and angry dogs running around loose. I am guessing you have never seen what starvation is like.

 

On August 1, 2016 at 6:21 PM, cumgranosalum said:

 

As for the food supply, I couldn't be moire serious - you don't seem to understand that restricting the food supply is not as you say "starving" the dogs. Your fear of 10's of 1000's of starving angry dogs is utterly baseless and shows a lack of knowledge of how the dog populations thrive in Thailand

When a food supply is reduced an animal population - in this case dogs - reduces itself quite naturally, many animals in a restricted food situation cease to breed and the population simply reduces through natural wastage.

 

 

On August 2, 2016 at 8:31 AM, cumgranosalum said:

There seem to be a lot of ignoramuses on this thread - culls don't work

 

On August 2, 2016 at 9:09 AM, cumgranosalum said:

All you are achieving to to demonstrate how utterly ignorant you are on this issue.

 

 

On August 2, 2016 at 9:16 AM, cumgranosalum said:

 

... what you say is profoundly uninformed - your views are archaic.

 

You seem quite oblivious to the dynamics of a dog population and how food shortages reduce birth rates and that natural wastage actually takes up the slack

 

 

9 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

 

These dogs will not go to doggie heaven.

reducing their access to a food supply will not result in packs of angry/hungry dogs - it will result in gradual reduction in the dog population

Not every dog will find a loving home.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

 

 The  World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), in line with WHO, in their paper on

Stray dog population control would beg to differ with your appraisal - in fact they don’t use the word “whacky” anywhere...

They define the Carrying capacity of an area as........” the upper limit of the dog population density that could be supported by the habitat based on the availability of resources (food, water, shelter), and human acceptance.”

 

Then continue - “The important factors relevant to the dog carrying capacity of the environment include food, shelter, water and human attitudes and behaviour.”

 And conclude.....”Steps should be taken to exclude dogs from sources of food (e.g. rubbish dumps and abattoirs, and installing animal-proof rubbish containers).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your posts are full of a completely condescending arrogance.

 

my only point to you was that your suggestion of cutting off the food supply to (by your account) 650,000 stray dogs would result in a population of starving dogs that would become aggressive as their hunger grew. Aggressive, starving dogs do not mix well with an urban population.

 

then you go on ad nauseum for seversl posts which I have edited to save readers the pain. 

 

Now you perform another of your cut&pastes in this last quote except you failed to include the next sentence of that study (which I have added in Bold below): 

 

6. Environmental controls

Steps should be taken to exclude dogs from sources of food (e.g. rubbish dumps and abattoirs, and installing animal-proof rubbish containers).

This should be linked to a reduction in the dog population by other methods, to avoid animal welfare problems. 

 

This was my only point. This is all I said and which resulted in your numous posts calling names and running on at the mouth like a dog with the squirts.

 

"Animal Welfare Problems" refers to massive dog starvation. 

 

Got it now? 

 

Your suggestion to cut off food supplies of dogs does result in starvation UNLESS a reduction in dog population by other methods is incorporated.

 

and if you had any sense or experience at all then you would know what Any farm kid has learned by about 7 years of age--a starving animal is an unpredictable and often times dangerous and aggressive animal.

[Artisi]

44 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

The Culls that have failed around the world have done so because they were simply not thorough enough. 

 

Culling is vastly superior than attempts to neuter dogs.

 

There is no carcass problem except in your head. Landfill or cremation is fine.

A very quick calculation on landfill requirements, based on 650,000 dogs which has been mentioned a few times would require maybe 30 / 35,000 cubic metre pit , which would measure approx. 10 x 60 x 60 metres and you probably wouldn't bury them all in one location just based on simple  logistics. There are numerous holes all over Thailand much bigger than this where fill has been taken for building construction etc.,  but  of course this wasn't mentioned in all the dubious "facts' that have been garnered from various places and now being passed off as the gospel - according to some. 

[Artisi]

6 hours ago, MiKT said:

 

 

 

 

Save your criticisms for the (only too many) dog haters here.

 

 

 

 

Your comment re dog haters is a bit nonsensical, if you cared to check you might find many of those against the thousands of "soi" dogs roaming around are dog owners themselves or are not dog haters. Most people are expressing a view that the problem needs sorting out and the quicker the better. I for one do not hate dogs that are correctly housed, feed, trained, and fully cared for - as for "soi" dogs there are simply vermin and should be removed from the streets for a number of good reasons. My view is well prepared coordinated humanely culling is the best method - Ok some disagree, entirely their privilege but continual arguing, quoting dubious findings of others, beating of their drum won't influence any change of mind on my part or it seems quite a few other posters.

 

I would be interested to hear from the "animal lovers" if the discussion was about rats, mice, cockroaches, pigeons, rabbits, cane-toads, would they be saying it's ok, we will just vaccinate / de-sex etc. them and that will sort out the problem, because we don't really have a problem.       

 

      

[Artisi]

A good reason to cull, or is it ok because we all should love dogs.

 

And I have come across one of the articles some of the experts are plagerising for their arguments.

 

http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/the-global-stray-dog-population-crisis-and-humane-relocation#sthash.wVKneXVH.dpbs  

Edited August 3, 2016 by Artisi

[ClutchClark]

I don't participate in these threads because they are academic and therefore filled with quite a lot of verbal masturbation. 

 

The simple reality is that Thailand does NOT need to do anything different than they currently do. The choice is 100% their own and not any of the posters on here who definitely have way too much idle time on their hands. 

 

Every so often culling does take place and some months later the populations retuen and then the process repeats itself. Oftentimes, the culls are performed by Thais local to the neighborhoods because the dogs targeted are specific. Other times a commerical interest will swiftly remove every dog they can find and transport them by lorry across the border where the dogs are sold for meat. Still other times, a city employee will respond to dog complaints and cull a particular area.

 

The reality is you guys could cull to your hearts content and the Thai people are going to encourage the population to return near its pre-cull levels. Why? Because this is what the Culture wants and its their culture...not yours.

 

Rabies is not nearly the concern it was 15 years ago.

 

The funniest thing about your posts is your constantly accusing each other of being "dog lovers" or "animal lovers" which is apparently a huge insult. 

 

I am glad to call myself a dog and animal lover but I can pretty much guarantee that I have killed more animals than all of you combined. 

 

I will leave all of you to continue your circle jerk. 

 

[Dagnabbit]

32 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

I don't participate in these threads because they are academic and therefore filled with quite a lot of verbal masturbation. 

 

The simple reality is that Thailand does NOT need to do anything different than they currently do. The choice is 100% their own and not any of the posters on here who definitely have way too much idle time on their hands. 

 

Every so often culling does take place and some months later the populations retuen and then the process repeats itself. Oftentimes, the culls are performed by Thais local to the neighborhoods because the dogs targeted are specific. Other times a commerical interest will swiftly remove every dog they can find and transport them by lorry across the border where the dogs are sold for meat. Still other times, a city employee will respond to dog complaints and cull a particular area.

 

The reality is you guys could cull to your hearts content and the Thai people are going to encourage the population to return near its pre-cull levels. Why? Because this is what the Culture wants and its their culture...not yours.

 

Rabies is not nearly the concern it was 15 years ago.

 

The funniest thing about your posts is your constantly accusing each other of being "dog lovers" or "animal lovers" which is apparently a huge insult. 

 

I am glad to call myself a dog and animal lover but I can pretty much guarantee that I have killed more animals than all of you combined. 

 

I will leave all of you to continue your circle jerk. 

 

 

 

Thailand does need to do something because rabies is not the only concern. Dog bites are very common here.  Dog feces spreads disease that can cause blindness. 

 

The real problem is dogs attacking humans here: https://www.facebook.com/DogAttacksThailand/ - especially children.

 

The only sites that show that "culls don't work" are written by dog lovers. If you google "dog cull" all you read are web sites from bleeding hearts that care more about dogs lives than the children they bite.

[MiKT]

13 hours ago, Artisi said:

Your comment re dog haters is a bit nonsensical, if you cared to check you might find many of those against the thousands of "soi" dogs roaming around are dog owners themselves or are not dog haters. Most people are expressing a view that the problem needs sorting out and the quicker the better. I for one do not hate dogs that are correctly housed, feed, trained, and fully cared for - as for "soi" dogs there are simply vermin and should be removed from the streets for a number of good reasons. My view is well prepared coordinated humanely culling is the best method - Ok some disagree, entirely their privilege but continual arguing, quoting dubious findings of others, beating of their drum won't influence any change of mind on my part or it seems quite a few other posters.

 

I would be interested to hear from the "animal lovers" if the discussion was about rats, mice, cockroaches, pigeons, rabbits, cane-toads, would they be saying it's ok, we will just vaccinate / de-sex etc. them and that will sort out the problem, because we don't really have a problem.       

 

      

 

 

Why are you kiblitzing my reply to someone else?

 

Guilty conscience?  555...........no I don't think so.

 

There are many dog haters on TV, people who have confessed to deliberately running over dogs, etc.

 

I am happy to hear you are a dog lover, but have you not noticed the one recurring theme in all my posts has been for people to contribute to getting the problem sorted, because in Thailand culling does not and will not work, no matter how good your maths at calculating land fills for dead dogs.

 

Also from your comment like "soi" dogs there are simply vermin", etc. it is very clear that you simply do not understand the problem. I don't know how many times I have to reiterate that most soi dogs are actually looked after (with varying degrees of kindness) and the population will not stand for interfering know-it-all farangs trying to impose ideas that work in another country, but do not take into account that This Is Thailand.

 

SO AGAIN......SUPPORT THE SOI DOG INITIATIVE and help rid Thailand of poor mistreated and neglected animals.

 

Clear enough for you this time.

 

Out of interest do you consider that all neglected, mistreated and homeless humans are also "simply vermin"? its not the dogs fault they are stray, its the human vermin who do not look after them that are the problem.

 

 

[Artisi]

3 hours ago, MiKT said:

 

 

Why are you kiblitzing my reply to someone else?

 

Guilty conscience?  555...........no I don't think so.

 

There are many dog haters on TV, people who have confessed to deliberately running over dogs, etc.

 

I am happy to hear you are a dog lover, but have you not noticed the one recurring theme in all my posts has been for people to contribute to getting the problem sorted, because in Thailand culling does not and will not work, no matter how good your maths at calculating land fills for dead dogs.

 

Also from your comment like "soi" dogs there are simply vermin", etc. it is very clear that you simply do not understand the problem. I don't know how many times I have to reiterate that most soi dogs are actually looked after (with varying degrees of kindness) and the population will not stand for interfering know-it-all farangs trying to impose ideas that work in another country, but do not take into account that This Is Thailand.

 

SO AGAIN......SUPPORT THE SOI DOG INITIATIVE and help rid Thailand of poor mistreated and neglected animals.

 

Clear enough for you this time.

 

Out of interest do you consider that all neglected, mistreated and homeless humans are also "simply vermin"? its not the dogs fault they are stray, its the human vermin who do not look after them that are the problem.

 

 

"Why are you kiblitzing my reply to someone else?

Guilty conscience?  555...........no I don't think so."

Would you care to explain the above. 

 

But back to your latest comment:

You are just flogging the same line over and over. Get a life, the majority of dogs roaming the streets are not owned, possibly owned once but now abandoned. As for you mind shattering comment: quote " ...the population will not stand for interfering know-it-all farangs trying to impose ideas that work in another country" unquote, does this refer to your cure for the problem of vaccination / sterilisation  or your misguided belief that properly organized culling doesn't work.   

[ClutchClark]

19 minutes ago, Artisi said:

"Why are you kiblitzing my reply to someone else?

Guilty conscience?  555...........no I don't think so."

Would you care to explain the above. 

 

But back to your latest comment:

You are just flogging the same line over and over. Get a life, the majority of dogs roaming the streets are not owned, possibly owned once but now abandoned. As for you mind shattering comment: quote " ...the population will not stand for interfering know-it-all farangs trying to impose ideas that work in another country" unquote, does this refer to your cure for the problem of vaccination / sterilisation  or your misguided belief that properly organized culling doesn't work.   

 

 A guilty conscience?

 

What? 

 

That makes no sense.

 

furthermore, properly organized culling can work on a short term basis in the absence of a paradigm shift in the local human population which feeds and cares for the dogs. Culling can have a long term effect when the local human population supports the cull and desires to modify their cultural norms. 

 

You appear to not understand the relationship that Thai society has with the Soi dog population is symbiotic. The method they choose to keep dog populations in check includes localized culls. 

 

The sterilization programs which operate in Thailand have the support of the local communities they operate in. We had Thai personnel and they interfaced with the local community members; however, there were times when someone would object to a particular Soi dog going under the knife and at those times their wish was respected. I don't know of even one such instance where the person could show papers or proof of ownership.

 

You folks here who are talking about a major and thorough cull program are simply talking nonsense because the majority of the Thai community does not want to see such a sweeping depopulation effort take place.

 

cheers

Edited August 4, 2016 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

+1 to Artisi for his use of the term "Kiblitzing".

[MiKT]

8 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

+1 to Artisi for his use of the term "Kiblitzing".

 

 

Hey, not only did Artisi kiblitz me, now you are praising him!

 

Pay more attention please Sir.

 

555