Re: Feeding stray dogs

Life Pets & Domestic Animals
1

[color=#008080]Mod note: I’ve added the material in this quote box to restore some of the original content which I lost earlier.Thanks to Cranky for helping me get it from Google cache and DB for showing me how.[/color]

I’ve put enough data on this thread for those of rational bent to make their own minds up about the success of TNR. [/quote]
My definition of success is that it is a vast improvement over the other methods that are generally used.
TNR costs money. If there was a better and cheaper alternative, wouldn’t the authorities use that instead?
Do you honestly think authorities would give up on, say, poison, if it worked? The point is that these methods have proven time and time and time again, over many, many, many decades, to be utterly ineffective, while TNR is proving to be a much more effective solution.
Is it perfect? Of course not! Is it the best option? You think no? Well, think of something better.

2

Dammit. OK, short responses only.

[quote=“itakitez”][quote=“Stray Dog”]Thelonlieste, the stats bounce right back at you. There are no stray cat colonies on earth that are 168,000 strong. The studies look at REAL colonies, ones of between 30 and 200 cats. The 1,600 out of 168,000 you keep quoting are what ONE GROUP is doing–that group isn’t trying to CNR the whole 168,000; other groups are contributing, and more will, especially if they pay attention to the REAL stats. But their stats aren’t included. You’re making big scientific judgments using flawed statistical analysis.
[/quote]

I would like thelionista to keep up - he does have valid arguments that I think should be addressed. As you rightly point out the sucess study was 1% of a total city population so a 70% increase in funding would be needed or some other approaches needed to get to that 70% [/quote]

I agree. More CNR, not less. Catch-and-kill has proven to increase populations.

[quote]I have two questions regarding critical mass / tipping point

  1. At which point does neutering become sustaining? ie, if there was a massive 'shock and awe" program over 6 months funded by millions of dollars, how many strays would need to be neutered so the population stops growing? Is that still 70% or closer to 50%?[/quote]

If 70 percent of the entire population is neutered, you have a leveling off. A population can be a group of animals living communally, or a city, or a county, or a whole country. It should include non-free-roaming animals.

Would lead to drastic measures, such as shooting, poisoning, etc. as the Brits performed in India for 100 years, with adverse effects: increased populations.

You need to read up on how this isn’t so much of an issue with dogs. Studies aren’t tainted; CNR has to be performed in exactly these circumstances.

[quote][quote=“Stray Dog”]You’re also confusing population control with population eradication, the latter of which is not where you want to be headed, unless you like being overrun with less desirable scavengers. The aim of CNR is to help control stray-animal numbers, not wipe them all out. That’s impossible by any means–and in fact makes matters worse.
[/quote]

So this is interesting, from a harsh scientific perspective, if the point is not to erradicate, but to merely control numbers to within those numbers that can be sustained by human garbage, this begs two questions.

  1. why bother - if the populatinos will only be limited by food, then the aim of CNR is just to prevent births of animals that will die due to food shortages, if no CNR is performed, the same number of strays will exist.[/quote]

If no CNR (or not enough CNR) is performed, the numbers will increase.

That’s largely why you see fewer strays in Taipei City now that street corners are no longer piled up with garbage. It’s not starvation that works so much as smaller litters.

See previous threads. Dogs and cats have very little effect on bird populations; human encroachment does. Dog packs are indeed a nuisance, and that’s why we shouldn’t make them bigger and more feral through catch-and-kill. CNR animals are indeed healthier, being vaccinated and all, and this has had a huge positive effect on public health where CNR has been practiced (pretty much eradicating human rabies deaths from dog bites, for instance. Plus, a neutered dog is more socially acceptable, because much of the antisocial behaviour dies down.

3

[quote=“redwagon”][quote=“Stray Dog”]
You’re also confusing population control with population eradication, the latter of which is not where you want to be headed, unless you like being overrun with less desirable scavengers. The aim of CNR is to help control stray-animal numbers, not wipe them all out. That’s impossible by any means–and in fact makes matters worse.
[/quote]
Please explain. I accept that it may be impossible to reach zero stray animals, but the target should be zero intact strays, right? If not, why not?[/quote]

Thelonlieste was calling CNR a failure because numbers only dropped by 66 percent over ten years, even though that included newly dumped animals. He or she appeared to be saying that anything short of zero stray dogs in a given population is failure.

4

[color=#000080]I really mucked up here. In attempting to delete a couple of double posts, I accidentally deleted most of this thread. I know that some of you put a lot of time and effort into it and I’m sincerely sorry.[/color]

[color=#FF0000]Jimi :blush: [/color]