Stray Dog Problem ~ Part II

This is a continuity of this thread: Stray dog problem. The thread is broken. I get the “error on line 22” message if I try to post or read it. Through doing back page, I am able to quote some of the content to formulate the following reply.(I got to read the latest posts before the thread stopped working.) At 26 pages, a Part II is not a bad thing anyways…

[quote=“Truant”]in particular are in opposition to people who have done significant more research and have the first hand experiences to verify what they read.

I know whose opinion I value more on this.[/quote]

'Aint THAT the truth.
Its a good thread, though, in that it gives Stray Dog a chance to show how much more convincing his arguments are than those of his detractors. And to show how much more grace he has doing it, too.[/quote]

[quote=“jdsmith”]Sandman, give me a large break. If someone were consistantly misrepresenting your posts you would have the same reaction I am having. Or much worse.

So," Bobepine says, "After 20 pages there are the people who want to cull the dogs and those who want to CNR them." This is not an oversimplification. It is a lie.[/quote]How about you give me a break, Mr. Smith? Like sandman said, I was replying to ironlady. How can I possibly be misinterpreting your post, since I was not quoting you? Like sandman also said, I think this comes to highlight your dislike for me, and perhaps Truant is also on to something when he questions either some people here are arguing simply for the sake of arguing…

Why do you use quotation marks for the above statement?(in blue above) Who wrote that? I certainly did not write that. So while you complain that I misrepresent your posts when I’m actually quoting another poster, you allow yourself to use quotation marks on either side of a statement I did not write. Doesn’t sound fair to me…

Here’s what I REALLY wrote, which is not what you quoted above: [quote=“I”]After 20 pages you haven’t noticed that there seem to be mainly two options discussed, here; one is culling(killing the dogs ie: taking them off the street as a mean to control the population) and CNR (leaving them on the street as a mean to control the population). [/quote]

1-You did not use the quotation marks adequately as what I wrote is not what you quoted at all. Is that not misrepresenting what I wrote? Please do not use quotation marks when writing what you think I meant! … Especially not if you will read so deep into what I write to someone else’s attention and start saying I post lies while intending to misrepresent your posts.

2-Note that I used the word “mainly”(underlined above) which clearly implies that other things have been discussed. This in no way means that other options have not been discussed.

3-As sandman said, I was not talking to you, I was not making any references to your posts. Take it or leave it. I did not even think about your posts, or your cull/CNR suggestion when posting the post that got you all huffin and puffin.

4-I sustain my opinion that this thread is MAINLY a discussion about the pros and cons of culling and CNRing animals. Talking about combining culling and CNR is still mainly a discussion about culling and CNR. Things such as shooting dogs with a bb gun, how to behave when you encounter a pack of aggressive strays, removing the food source, and of course, suggestions to combine CNR and culling are just sub-topics as they are not the MAIN topic being discussed.

5-Context: Sean used the terms"leaving the dogs on the street" as opposed to using the term CNR, and ironlady decided to quote him and do a play with words asking if CNR was or was not a method of controlling the population/lowering the population. I simply explained that what Sean meant by “leaving the dogs on the street” was actually CNR by saying that CNR and culling have been the two MAIN things on the table for discussion. I did not mean to make any references to you, jd, or anyone else. I haven’t. You can say whatever you want, but you can’t tell me what I meant when I wrote that. Only I know what I was thinking, and what I meant.

No it is not.[/quote]I disagree, and to you, that makes me a liar. :loco:[quote=“jdsmith”] Culling and CNR are two of many methods of dealing with the problem. Other methods include neutering, capture and containing strays in pounds, food source removal and adoption.

The options are to use them both, neither, or some combination of the two, or a combination of some other method, like food source removal.[/quote]

Yeah, sure. That’s why I said “there
seem
to be
mainly
two options discussed, here…”

I mean, Goddamn! Maoman started a thread where he posted that he was considering calling the dog catchers(culling) in an attempt to solve a stray dog problem. From there, Sean and I, as well as many others, advocated CNR as a better option. Those are the MAIN options discussed in this thread; culling and CNR.

Other things were discussed such as how to behave when dealing with aggressive dogs, shooting them with a bb gun, removing the food source, and of course, combining cull and CNR. Sure! But they are only the sub-topics that the MAIN topic generated.

This is clearly more an issue of dislike for me that you have, jd, and I think that Truant also touched on something I am pretty sensitive about. To me it translates as follows: You consistently attempt to harm my integrity by saying I am disrespectful, patronizing, demonizing(etc) or by saying I am causing harm to the organization I work with, or by saying I’m lying, etc, etc, etc. Yet, aside from the issues we have had with namahottie, which I profusely apologized for, BTW, you have been the only one saying these things. I am sick of it. All I do here is post my opinions and I advocate that we respect our four legged friends. Why oh why would you insist on making things so difficult for me? If you don’t like me, fine, but please give it a rest. I’m just doing my best to help animals here, man, and that means speaking on their behalf sometimes.

It’s not really a thread about the stray problem now, though, is it. :s

[quote=“Stray Dog”]It’s not really a thread about the stray problem now, though, is it. :s[/quote]It sure is if you link it to the previous thread. I’m just replying to jd’s accusations. I wouldn’t do it here if the thread was not broken…

Would you take kindly to be called a liar, Sean? Would you take kindly to have your organization discredited just because you express your opinion? Enough of the bullshit. Besides, I’m getting flack here for supporting you, since the post that got jd all pissed off was in reply to what ironlady wrote to your attention. You seemed to agree at the time until jd made a big deal out of nothing…Here’s what you posted:[quote=“Stray Dog”]What bobepine said. :wink:[/quote]

Thanks for that, mate! :s I thought about posting a disclaimer to avoid this kind of reply, BTW. The last time, it was Sandman who said something about this shit not being of interest to anyone, and this time he’s the one asking jd WTF is wrong with him. That’s what I put up with, man. jd is nothing short of a bloody nuisance to my efforts to help animals.

PS:Perhaps my reply can just be merged with the broken thread once it’s fixed, or it can be temped. Either way is OK with me. I said what I had to say.

I just think your energy and rapid typing skills could be put to better use focused on the goal ahead. :wink:

[quote=“Stray Dog”]I just think your energy and rapid typing skills could be put to better use focused on the goal ahead. :wink:[/quote]Agreed. If jd can give me a bloody break, I’ll do just that.

I have always said that I would not ignore anyone here. Perhaps I need to reconsider my position. Mind me, if jd will lose it when I quote someone else, it might not help anyways…

Um…the topic of the thread is whatever direction the posters take the thread in. The main topic – proposed by the Original Poster – is simply the “Stray Dog Problem.” So that would encompass all sorts of things related to the problem, not just the items you want to focus on. If you want to start separate threads to discuss specific things, fine, but I don’t believe it’s up to you to dictate what can or cannot be discussed.

No, actually Ironland did not “do a play on words”. I asked quite a simple and straightforward question: is not the final goal of ANY solution for the stray dog problem to eliminate all stray dogs on the island, no matter how that is accomplished? The post I was responding to way back when (and I can’t get in to view it) seemed to have lost sight of the ultimate goal.

So can someone clarify: what is the final goal of a solution for the stray dog problem in Taiwan? Is it considered to be merely creating stable populations of not-too-objectionable dogs living where they like, or is it (theoretically and eventually) to eliminate all strays from the island?

Even bobepine? :wink:

It’s to get it into people’s heads that there will always be strays (see the UK post earlier). It’s to keep that number as low as possible - preferably zero. That’s my opinion anyway. Each to their own of course.

[quote=“ironlady”][quote=“bobepine”]4-I sustain my opinion that this thread
is
MAINLY a discussion about the pros and cons of culling and CNRing animals.
Talking about combining culling and CNR is still mainly a discussion about culling and CNR. Things such as shooting dogs with a bb gun, how to behave when you encounter a pack of aggressive strays, removing the food source, and of course, suggestions to combine CNR and culling are just sub-topics as they are not the MAIN topic being discussed. [/quote]

Um…the topic of the thread is whatever direction the posters take the thread in. The main topic – proposed by the Original Poster – is simply the “Stray Dog Problem.” So that would encompass all sorts of things related to the problem, not just the items you want to focus on. If you want to start separate threads to discuss specific things, fine, but I don’t believe it’s up to you to dictate what can or cannot be discussed.
[/quote]Where exactly did I try to dictate what can, and what can not be discussed? I was merely summarizing what has been discussed, not what should be discussed or not. I even mentioned “sub-topics” which suggests that yes, the thread direction has gone into different directions. Sub-topics are fine with me if you’d like to know… Playing with words again, I see.

Look at what I highlighted in blue above. Perhaps if I said that “I sustain my opinion that this discussion “should be” blablabla…” You would make sense… But I did not say what the discussion should be, I summarized what it has been about in my own honest opinion. I enlarge the verb “is” just for you.

I’d like to see the thread progress through discussion of the topic(s), not via further micro-analysis of who said what to whom and how, and which really meant what else instead of what the poster thought it meant. Or, for that matter, further statements that anyone who disagrees or questions is “playing with words”.

I think someone is going to have to copy some of the last posts on the other thread over, otherwise I can’t see much discussion developing from this point.

[quote=“Stray Dog”]

It’s to get it into people’s heads that there will always be strays (see the UK post earlier). It’s to keep that number as low as possible - preferably zero. That’s my opinion anyway. Each to their own of course.[/quote]Make that at least two of us; it is also my opinion.

[quote]I’d like to see the thread progress through discussion of the topic(s), not via further micro-analysis of who said what to whom and how, and which really meant what else instead of what the poster thought it meant. Or, for that matter, further statements that anyone who disagrees is “playing with words”. [/quote]Tell that to jdsmith. Nice try ironlady. Once again, down to making general statements because you can’t support your own opinion specifically…

Face it, you have not put on the table one single evidence that culling, or culling combined with CNR is a good option. All the while you are overwhelmed with evidences that prove you lost this debate. You resort to playing with words, and when you’re called on it, you make general statements about NOT saying others, ie:you, are playing with words, again, without specifically proving your point. General statements the like of let’s not say others are playing with words just because we disagree are unspecific, and for that matter, very weak arguments.

The other thread will be fixed at some point. I suggest you wait until then if you need the posts from Part I to make your point specifically, and logically, as opposed to attempting to set unfounded rules to this discussion to better soothe your lack of specific arguments.

Do you think it even remotely possible that we could talk about stray dogs and related issues, rather than talking about HOW people are talking about stray dogs and related issues?

I think Stray Dog nailed it… The obvious goal is to reduce the numbers of strays, and especially strays that either are suffering or are in some way a menace. Sure, it would be, to use a phrase oft used by the Grateful Dead, “just exactly perfect” if we could humanely arrive at a solution where no dogs live as strays… and where all doggies and kitties in the world live with a loving human family. But, that “just exactly perfect” situation is never going to exist (at least I don’t think it will… at least not until humans get their acts together… but, I’m not going to hold my breath for that…). So, in the meantime, ought we not do our best to move toward the goal?

Right? So what’s the big deal?

We all want to see suffering reduced, if not eliminated. We just disagree (or maybe we are talking past each other) as to the best way to work toward that goal.

Those who question whether or not CNR will work seem unimpressed with the evidence that it does work. Again, that it “works” doesn’t mean that it is an absolute cure/remedy for the problem (as there is none). But, it seems to be the best approach available currently. And we know for a fact that culling alone doesn’t work at all. Culling hasn’t worked in other countries… and culling hasn’t worked in Taiwan. This much is obvious.

So what about culling and using CNR? Vicious dogs that cannot be successfully homed do need to be put down. Leaving vicious and aggressive dogs on the street is not a good option, for anyone… people or other dogs.

But, the idea that entire packs of strays, including non-aggressive dogs, should be culled simply to remove them from an area, although it is a near certainty that in a very short time that area will be repopulated by new stray dogs, doesn’t seem a rational approach to the problem, IMO.

So what about using CNR, culling only where necessary, cleaning up garbage and other sources of food, advocating relevant and appropriate legislative changes, and educating the populace about the importance of neutering their pets and the commitment one makes when deciding to buy/adopt/take in an animal? That seems to me to be the most sensible and comprehensive approach to the problem. And that seems to be the approach that Sean, bobepine and AT are in fact taking.

Let’s not let our individual personalities and egos get in the way of discussion and even agreement. And I’m not referring to anyone in particular now (as I have been involved in more than my share of petty arguments on this site). Discussion is good. This problem is an important problem. It deserves respect. And yinz all deserve respect from each other.

I’d give the thumbs up to that.

Me too.

Make it law that all pets must be neutered and micro-chipped at two months, and you have a surefire way to really bring the numbers close to zero.

[quote=“ironlady”]

Do you think it even remotely possible that we could talk about stray dogs and related issues, rather than talking about HOW people are talking about stray dogs and related issues?[/quote]Won’t be a problem if you stop misquoting me. Difficult not to call you on it. According to you, this is dictating what should and what should not be discussed:[quote=“bobepine the dictator”]I sustain my opinion that this thread is MAINLY a discussion about the pros and cons of culling and CNRing animals.[/quote]

Better yet, if jd stops assuming I’m referring to him in a derogative way when I reply to you, I’m sure we can talk about stray dogs. According to jd, this is a blantant lie:[quote=“bobepine the liar”]After 20 pages you haven’t noticed that there seem to be mainly two options discussed, here; one is culling(killing the dogs ie: taking them off the street as a mean to control the population) and CNR (leaving them on the street as a mean to control the population).[/quote]

Listen ironlady, I summarize the thread in my own words, and you turn things around to pretend I’m trying to dictate what the conversation should be about, and jd is calling me a liar for roughly the same summarization. Is that what you mean by talking about stray dogs? Sounds like you guys are talking about bobepine to me…

So yeah… Now that both you and jd seem to be backing out of talking about bobepine, I fully agree that discussing stray dogs instead would be excellent. :slight_smile:

[quote=“Tigerman”]I think Stray Dog nailed it… The obvious goal is to reduce the numbers of strays, and especially strays that either are suffering or are in some way a menace. Sure, it would be, to use a phrase oft used by the Grateful Dead, “just exactly perfect” if we could humanely arrive at a solution where no dogs live as strays… and where all doggies and kitties in the world live with a loving human family. But, that “just exactly perfect” situation is never going to exist (at least I don’t think it will… at least not until humans get their acts together… but, I’m not going to hold my breath for that…). So, in the meantime, ought we not do our best to move toward the goal?

Right? So what’s the big deal?

We all want to see suffering reduced, if not eliminated. We just disagree (or maybe we are talking past each other) as to the best way to work toward that goal.

Those who question whether or not CNR will work seem unimpressed with the evidence that it does work. Again, that it “works” doesn’t mean that it is an absolute cure/remedy for the problem (as there is none). But, it seems to be the best approach available currently. And we know for a fact that culling alone doesn’t work at all. Culling hasn’t worked in other countries… and culling hasn’t worked in Taiwan. This much is obvious.

So what about culling and using CNR? Vicious dogs that cannot be successfully homed do need to be put down. Leaving vicious and aggressive dogs on the street is not a good option, for anyone… people or other dogs.

But, the idea that entire packs of strays, including non-aggressive dogs, should be culled simply to remove them from an area, although it is a near certainty that in a very short time that area will be repopulated by new stray dogs, doesn’t seem a rational approach to the problem, IMO.

So what about using CNR, culling only where necessary, cleaning up garbage and other sources of food, advocating relevant and appropriate legislative changes, and educating the populace about the importance of neutering their pets and the commitment one makes when deciding to buy/adopt/take in an animal? That seems to me to be the most sensible and comprehensive approach to the problem. And that seems to be the approach that Sean, bobepine and AT are in fact taking.

Let’s not let our individual personalities and egos get in the way of discussion and even agreement. And I’m not referring to anyone in particular now (as I have been involved in more than my share of petty arguments on this site). Discussion is good. This problem is an important problem. It deserves respect. And yinz all deserve respect from each other.[/quote]

Well, Tigerman,

You have participated very little in this thread; a few good words back when we were discussing how to deal with aggressive strays, and now you offer another well thought out and very insightful post.

Hat’s off to you, Sir. :notworthy:

Stray dog

Yup…same with Prostitution.
May not want it on YOUR street…[or maybe you do] …but why should it bother you?
Criminalize it all you want, there’s always a John looking for some “action.”
Improve the health and safety of the Sex workers, Johns can’t spread disease to their wives. Everybody “Happy.”
If you Still don’t “like it”…don’t look.

If you can’t /won’t Help…then don’t Hurt. You then become part of the problem and NOT the Solution.
Which part are you?

I agree with much of what Tigerman said.

But the questions I posed in the other thread remain unanswered, and I feel they’re still relevant.

[quote=“Tigerman”]Those who question whether or not CNR will work seem unimpressed with the evidence that it does work…[/quote]When I searched for this stuff, I found that most of the evidence from developed countries concerns stray cat populations only. There is not so much evidence concerning stray dogs, and what evidence there is comes mostly from developing countries. So I wonder whether there is sufficient evidence to show that CNR would be effective on a wide scale in Taiwan.

But before people get into kneejerk reactions to this question of mine, they should understand clearly why I’m asking it. I certainly hope that CNR will be proven effective here. It seems that it should be, and anyway there’s no harm in trying. But people should be a little cautious in the claims they make about research conducted to date.

Another question I had was as to why encountering stray dogs on the street is relatively uncommon in other countries such as the UK. Is this due to CNR programs? The information Tom Hill posted didn’t really say either way. Or is it due to killing of dogs? Quite a few stray dogs are killed in the UK every year. Out of principle I’m opposed to that, but pro-CNR people need to be ready to respond to such arguments.

I had a third question but I can’t remember it right now, so it can’t have been very important!

[quote=“Tigerman”]So what about … cleaning up garbage and other sources of food… That seems to me to be the most sensible and comprehensive approach to the problem. And that seems to be the approach that Sean, bobepine and AT are in fact taking.[/quote]Apologies for the drastic edits, but when you say “other sources of food” does that include stopping people from feeding strays in parks, for example? I don’t think Bobepine for one agrees with that.

[quote=“joesax”]

I agree that feeding the dogs can aggravate things. The distinction is simple. I disagree with issuing fines to people who feed strays for two reasons. First, more and more dog feeders are actually aware of the importance of neutering, and they contribute to helping the problem by CNRing more and more of these dogs. Issuing fines to them, only removes their financial resources which could be used more effectively by paying vet bills for animals they CNR. Issuing fines to these people is putting sticks in the wheels of a necessary change Taiwan needs in a bad way. These people are the pillars of the necessary changes ahead. I think the local communities should help these people, instead of making their lives more difficult. If people were smart enough, they could use the feeders as working bees who could/can catch all these dogs with ease to conduct successful CNR programs where easily more than 67% of the dogs could be CNRed. I really think it would pay off in time. You know, some communities already do pool their resources to CNR the animals in their neighborhood, and those who do the work are basically independent, compassionate dog feeders. The government needs these people to work with them if CNR will become a national approach to solve the stray problem in Taiwan.

The other reason is I truly believe that cleaning up garbage should suffice. Issuing fines to those who litter would make more sense to me. It makes for a cleaner environment for everyone. Mostly though, I refuse to agree to let dogs starve as a way to control the population. I find it immoral, and unnecessary. I don’t think that the changes Taipei has seen in terms of stray dogs population when the garbage removal system was changed quite compares with a handful of people feeding strays in the local parks.

In other words, those who feed strays are blamed for making the problem worse, but I don’t think they really aggravate the problem in terms of population control. Maybe a little bit, but not significantly, IMO. If the dog feeders CNR one bitch only, the positive impact far outweighs the negative aspect which is that feeding strays is deemed to help them reproduce easier, and faster. Just think how many off springs an intact bitch can generate in a two year period if she gives birth to a dozen females…

Let’s not forget that the reason behind the idea of issuing fines has little, if anything to do with controlling the population. It’s aimed mostly to have the dogs seek food sources elsewhere to avoid the problem of feces, and barking. This, IMO, only pushes the problem to surrounding neighborhoods. It’s like throwing the ball at someone else…

Look at it this way, some communities want to issue fines to dog feeders, and other communities sponsor the feeders to conduct CNR on the animals who come back to them for their daily feed. Which approach do you think is best?

That’s a very persuasive line of argument, Bob.

So occasional, random feeding of stray dogs, as in leaving food out for any old dogs to come along and eat, or tossing bits of food to different dogs encountered by chance in different places, is a misguided action and should be discouraged. But regular feeding of particular dogs in specific places is a good thing not only because it’s humane but because it builds up a close relationship between the feeder and fed, which should then enable the feeder to CNR those dogs or help others to do so.

That sounds pretty good to me.

[quote=“bobepine”][quote=“joesax”]

I agree that feeding the dogs can aggravate things. The distinction is simple. I disagree with issuing fines to people who feed strays for two reasons. First, more and more dog feeders are actually aware of the importance of neutering, and they contribute to helping the problem by CNRing more and more of these dogs. Issuing fines to them, only removes their financial resources which could be used more effectively by paying vet bills for animals they CNR. Issuing fines to these people is putting sticks in the wheels of a necessary change Taiwan needs in a bad way. These people are the pillars of the necessary changes ahead. I think the local communities should help these people, instead of making their lives more difficult. If people were smart enough, they could use the feeders as working bees who could/can catch all these dogs with ease to conduct successful CNR programs where easily more than 67% of the dogs could be CNRed. I really think it would pay off in time. You know, some communities already do pool their resources to CNR the animals in their neighborhood, and those who do the work are basically independent, compassionate dog feeders. The government needs these people to work with them if CNR will become a national approach to solve the stray problem in Taiwan.

The other reason is I truly believe that cleaning up garbage should suffice. Issuing fines to those who litter would make more sense to me. It makes for a cleaner environment for everyone. Mostly though, I refuse to agree to let dogs starve as a way to control the population. I find it immoral, and unnecessary. I don’t think that the changes Taipei has seen in terms of stray dogs population when the garbage removal system was changed quite compares with a handful of people feeding strays in the local parks.

In other words, those who feed strays are blamed for making the problem worse, but I don’t think they really aggravate the problem in terms of population control. Maybe a little bit, but not significantly, IMO. If the dog feeders CNR one bitch only, the positive impact far outweighs the negative aspect which is that feeding strays is deemed to help them reproduce easier, and faster. Just think how many off springs an intact bitch can generate in a two year period if she gives birth to a dozen females…

Let’s not forget that the reason behind the idea of issuing fines has little, if anything to do with controlling the population. It’s aimed mostly to have the dogs seek food sources elsewhere to avoid the problem of feces, and barking. This, IMO, only pushes the problem to surrounding neighborhoods. It’s like throwing the ball at someone else…

Look at it this way, some communities want to issue fines to dog feeders, and other communities sponsor the feeders to conduct CNR on the animals who come back to them for their daily feed. Which approach do you think is best?[/quote]

Nice one. Don’t think there’s anything else I could add to this. :bravo: