Stray dog problem

Life Pets & Domestic Animals
181

[quote][quote=“Muzha Man”][quote=“jdsmith”]Well to be fair, I just don’t think the oil/fire analogy works here. They killed thousands of dogs 10 years ago Sean, and there aren’t as many now. :idunno:
[/quote]

JD, this has been answered many times. There were more dogs because garbage was left out on the streets. When the garbage policy changed requiring people to bag it and take it out daily the street dog population dropped as the food source diminished. [/quote]

I’m not so sure that BOTH the culling and the garbage dumping policy were(edit: n’t) responsible for the drastic change MM. I lived in Hsin Chuang in 1994, and the dogcatcher came by 2-3 times a WEEK and picked up stray cats and dogs and threw them into the back of a van, and they were STILL everywhere.

I am suggesting that the example of a Cull/CNR would work in Taiwan because a Cull/Change in the Grabage dumping laws worked so well. I only wish I had taken pictures of the Trash Mtn on the street with 20 dogs rutting around in it.

[quote]

Oh I agree completely. People CAN change, but let me ask you if things would have changed if the government never did anything about it? The SD problem was addressed 12 years ago because it was a civic fucking nightmare. Now? I don’t think the Taiwanese see it as a problem anymore…and that’s a problem in itself.

And this is why I wonder, why I am curious (not that I fancy culls) if Cull/CNR programs run by the communities would work in localized areas.

[quote]
That said, I truly believe they will NEVER learn to stop burning![/quote][/quote][/quote]
That will happen right after they ban fireworks. Do you remember when the government issued Ghost Money Credit Cards?

bwahahahahahaha :laughing:

182

[quote=“jdsmith”]
I’m not so sure that BOTH the culling and the garbage dumping policy were responsible for the drastic change MM. [/quote]

I’m not so sure this makes sense, that is, I don’t get your meaning.

183

[quote=“Muzha Man”][quote=“jdsmith”]
I’m not so sure that BOTH the culling and the garbage dumping policy were responsible for the drastic change MM. [/quote]

I’m not so sure this makes sense, that is, I don’t get your meaning.[/quote]

Just that it is most likely a combination of the two things, not just that the garbage wasn’t being dumped anymore.

If what I said is not what you think I meant when I said or what I said is not understandbale because I said it in a manner that is vague I can try to clarify by saying it again so that by saying a second time what I said the first time but saying it a bit differently you can then say something about what I said and when you say it, it will make more sense to us both. :smiley:

184

[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“Muzha Man”][quote=“jdsmith”]
I’m not so sure that BOTH the culling and the garbage dumping policy were responsible for the drastic change MM. [/quote]

I’m not so sure this makes sense, that is, I don’t get your meaning.[/quote]

Just that it is most likely a combination of the two things, not just that the garbage wasn’t being dumped anymore.

If what I said is not what you think I meant when I said or what I said is not understandbale because I said it in a manner that is vague I can try to clarify by saying it again so that by saying a second time what I said the first time but saying it a bit differently you can then say something about what I said and when you say it, it will make more sense to us both. :smiley:[/quote]

Yes, well, rather…

185

If it’s a matter of ethics, how ethical would it be for a nation to believe that they are the superior or most important race on our planet and set about cleansing all nations that they see as inferior or ‘a problem’?

Take it further: What if there is intelligent life out there and they decide to colonize the planet, much in the same way we have, creating religions or philosophies that give all other life forms a status second in class to their own? Ethically, could they enslave us, abuse us, cull us, torture us, kill us as they choose, because they are the superior life form (in their mind)?

If you really want to state that we can do what we want because of similar reasons, then you have no argument for preventing other species from doing what they want to us for their own benefit.

Again, if our planet were ever taken over by another life form that was proving to be ‘superior’ in whatever way is important to you, what would your position be then?

Trust me, when my alien friends come, I shall be giving them the IP addresses of all those who believe that superior life forms have a right to do as they please with other life forms. :wink:

186

Logically and ethically that would be stupid and the result of an overexcited ego.

Well, if men come from Uranus then yes their ethical system might just well place us outside of it. However, they might just see that we DO have the ability to adapt, as well as reason and might think we are far more interesting to watch.

I hope you are not suggesting that there are UNIVERSAL ethics that include all sentient beings, and that the top tier of sentient beings are charged with protecting, enforcing and promulgating them. I mean, that’s Jean Luc Picard stuff there buddy. :astonished:

[quote]If you really want to state that we can do what we want because of similar reasons, then you have no argument for preventing other species from doing what they want to us for their own benefit.
[/quote]
Nope and when they come and should they wish to neuter me and release me back into a McDonaldless world, I guess I won’t complian much. Could be worse.

[quote]
Again, if our planet were ever taken over by another life form that was proving to be ‘superior’ in whatever way is important to you, what would your position be then?[/quote]
Have you been reading David Icke?

The thing is Sean, we are NOT alien to this world. We are a merging of alien DNA to the homosapien monkey DNA which in turn gave birth to the homosapien sapien.

[quote]
Trust me, when my alien friends come, I shall be giving them the IP addresses of all those who believe that superior life forms have a right to do as they please with other life forms. :wink: [/quote][/quote]
Yeah, I’m sure you have your throw rug all picked out on their lodge floor, next to the neutrino fireplace. :raspberry:

187

[quote=“jdsmith”]What is “ethical” to you is not necessarily ethical to me[/quote]No kidding.

[quote=“jdsmith”]How can you PROVE that your ethical standards are the proper ones and should be followed? It is not an easy road to take.[/quote]You’re right. The easy route to take is the one you’re taking which is to point out that ethical point of views are not easy to prove. That’s a no brainer since all you have to do is disagree with someone else’s ethical POV in order to say “How can you prove it?” You have you’re own opinion, and I have mine. Hence why I said this discussion will just keep going around in circles. The following quotes are good examples:

[quote=“jdsmith”]I do not feel that the ethical ramifications of this topic should be the primary focus though. The problem and a proper solution that is fair to the PEOPLE involved is the issue.[/quote]Fairness to animals is a non issue to you since they do not have rights in your opinion,(We have the right to be treated fairly… animals do not, according to you…) and…[quote=“jdsmith”]My neighbors once poisoned the cats in our neighborhood. I was more upset that they threw the carcasses over the wall into my yard than I was at the fact that they killed them. [/quote]…you are more upset at the thought of having dead cats on your lawn than you are with the horrible death and excruciating pain the cats endured while dying of poisoning.

What else can I say? If an ethical POV, to you, when it comes to animals, allows more considerations to the inconvenience of a dead cat on your lawn than the pain the animals are inflicted, not to mention that their right to live is non-existent to you, what else is there to talk about? [quote=“jdsmith”]I am wondering if there is more viable answer for Taiwan’s SD problem. [/quote]My guess is that you should be discussing this with like minded people, because you will not find an ounce of enthusiasm for this discussion from animal welfare representatives while going on about how it bothers you more to see a dead cat on your lawn than to know the poor thing died a horrible death because of an asshole, who, just like you, did not believe animals have rights. If animals really don’t have rights, then the suffering we can allow ourselves to inflict on them is endless. Simple. What is called torture to a person would be called vandalism to an animal according to your POV. People have the right not to be hurt or poisoned. You may come up with some clever way to explain why animals should not be poisoned, while explaining that it has nothing to do with animal rights, but really, I think you’re anecdote about the dead cats speaks for itself. Put simply, if animals should not be inflicted such pain, that’s because they have the right not to. Not just because we should not do that. In fact, we should not do that because they have the right not to be hurt like that.

As far as I can see, we are not even talking about ethics here anymore, just common sense. Mind me, you are allowed not to make any sense whatsoever. That’s you’re right to have your own opinions, either it makes sense to me, or not. :wink:

Here:[quote=“jdsmith”]Look what happened when you told Maoman that if you start the CNR programs, in 6 months the population would stabalise, and in 6 YEARS his daughter could walk there dog free. Who will agree with that? Only the true believers.[/quote]And here:[quote=“jdsmith”]That “short term satisfaction” might get a lot of animal neutral Taiwanese people on board[/quote]

And again, here:[quote=“jdsmith”]I would add that Sean might want to become more flexible in dealing with politicians who do need an upfront quick fix…[/quote]

188

I have ALWAYS said, and in those quotes you provided too if you would include more than the point that makes you think you prove your point that a cull FOLLOWED by a CNR program might work better.

Might. That means I’m not sure. You asked for proof that culling works. Then I give you the culling/garbage dumping example from Taiwan, and not a single comment on that.

But dead cats on my lawn where my son and his friends played bothered me more than the deaths of bothersome pests? Yes. Yes it did.

It might help your ethical position if you didn’t constantly cut/paste your way through other’s people’s posts to “prove” your point of what a bastard I am.

189

Great idea, bobepine, except that Forumosa.com is NOT in existence specifically to provide a message-board for animal rights people. It’s a discussion group for people with some sort of tie to or interest in Taiwan, and as such you really have to expect a multiplicity of opinions and views. I would suggest that if it seems “wrong” for people to post opinions here that aren’t congruent with yours, or if you think that discussions with such people participating “only go in circles” and are therefore useless, perhaps you should set up a message board elsewhere which would only be open to animal rights people, and then you could have discussions with your own set of like-minded people. Presumably those discussion would “go somewhere”, although the lack of cross-fertilization from outside views would make them rather inbred rather quickly, I should think.

190

Perhaps it was successful, and could be successful again. However, based on the information Sean and bobepine have provided us, I don’t think the culling part was the key or even necessary ingredient. In fact it may have even hampered the effort. Only a small percentage of dogs have to survive in order to replenish the population, because mass culling opens up a huge amount of resources for a small amount of dogs. Larger and stronger litters are the result, as well as more frequent mating. Now in the example you provided, the difference is that the food sources were simultaneously reduced. I guess the question becomes whether the reduction in population via culling and the reduction in food sources are comparable. If not, there could still have been the situation of a small number of dogs and a large food source, albeit not as large, which might have created another artificial population boom, albeit smaller, which was offset by the continued reduction in food sources (garbage). I agree it is possible, but it is still uncertain whether the culling was necessary or helpful.

Now something we know to be true through the studies posted is that when a pack of strays is CNR’ed, they will continue to guard their territory and food sources, preventing an artificial population boom among the still fertile animals. There are always bound to be some fertile animals who surive both culling and CNR campaigns. The difference is this: With mass culling, the result is an artificial population boom; with mass CNR, the result is a drastic reduction in population. A combination of culling and CNR -something you have also suggested- is not proven to work. CNR is. To me, it makes sense to utilize a scientifically proven method championed by the World Health Organization and the World Organization for Animal Health. One inconclusive counter-example is not enough to dissuade me from this position. Can you provide any academic studies that support your position? I am not trying to “call you out” here. I just want to know what kind of data are available to support culling.

191

Great idea, bobepine, except that Forumosa.com is NOT in existence specifically to provide a message-board for animal rights people. It’s a discussion group for people with some sort of tie to or interest in Taiwan, and as such you really have to expect a multiplicity of opinions and views. I would suggest that if it seems “wrong” for people to post opinions here that aren’t congruent with yours, or if you think that discussions with such people participating “only go in circles” and are therefore useless, perhaps you should set up a message board elsewhere which would only be open to animal rights people, and then you could have discussions with your own set of like-minded people. Presumably those discussion would “go somewhere”, although the lack of cross-fertilization from outside views would make them rather inbred rather quickly, I should think.[/quote]Erm… My comment you quoted above was in accordance with my other comments that this discussion is going around in circles. Your post is irrelevant since I have discussed this, and so did others, with jd and you, until it became clear that this discussion is going nowhere. So what’s your point again? Oh yeah… “Kill dogs to have a couple weeks of peace and quiet, shoot them with bb guns, and animals have no rights whatsoever.” Oh and “start your own forum instead of suggesting that the discussion has gone around in circles.”

Like I said, this discussion is pointless. So yes, perhaps you should also discuss doing these things(killing animals, shooting them with bb guns, etc) with like minded people, ironlady. There is nothing else to talk about here. That’s my point. After 20 pages, I’d say your above comment is irrelevant at best. After 20 pages of providing you with links, studies, documentations, etc, while you offer nothing but your opinion, you ask me to start my own bbs because I say this discussion is going nowhere? Are you bloody serious?

[quote]But dead cats on my lawn where my son and his friends played bothered me more than the deaths of bothersome pests? Yes. Yes it did.

It might help your ethical position if you didn’t constantly cut/paste your way through other’s people’s posts to “prove” your point of what a bastard I am.[/quote]So there it is in bold, jd. No cut and paste, you comment in its entirety. So whatchya going to teach your kids about the dead cats? That they are pests, and that the cats have no rights? And that the asshole who tossed the cats on your lawn did wrong not so much because he poisoned the cats as much as because he tossed them onto your lawn? Go for it…

Like I said, I think this discussion has run its course.

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Can you provide any academic studies that support your position? I am not trying to “call you out” here. I just want to know what kind of data are available to support culling.[/quote]Don’t hold your breath, Sir. :wink:

192

GBH wrote:[quote]
Perhaps it was successful, and could be successful again. However, based on the information Sean and bobepine have provided us, I don’t think the culling part was the key or even necessary ingredient. In fact it may have even hampered the effort. Only a small percentage of dogs have to survive in order to replenish the population, because mass culling opens up a huge amount of resources for a small amount of dogs.[/quote]
I don’t think Sean has adequately addressed this specific cull. It is easy to see that culls alone will not work for the reasons you have mentioned. I get that. What I am seeking to get more opinions on are whether or not a Cull/CNR Program is also an effective alternative.

If there are studies on the Taiwan Cull in the 1990s in relation to the new antigarbage dumping laws, I’d love to read, but so far I’ve turned up nada. And even if I did, it would most likely be in Chinese, which I don’t read well.

The fact is that two things were done in the 1990s. They culled the street dog population, bad in and of itself because of the imminent population explosion, and, secondly, they removed, I’d have to say 80-90% of the food source.

Now it seems logical that it they ONLY removed the food source, the dogs would still have been there, hungry scavengers, literally thousands of them.

There was AFAIK no CNR policy. The government only removed the food source. So let’s look at what COULD have happened:

Thousands of strays dogs that will SURELY starve to death and die right on the streets. Or would they ALL migrate out of the city? I doubt it. I think they would have gone straight to the temples and night/morning markets. That’s where the food is. So now the dogs, hungrier than ever are heading to places loaded with people. Bad idea.

Back to reality. Now, correct me if I’m wrong Sean, but there has been no government policy of CNR in place since the 1990s, right? And the number of street dogs out there is FAR less than what it was 10 years ago. Is your group, and others like it responsible for CNRing so many dogs that YOU are responsbile for the incredible decrease in the SD population? Or was the cull a major factor?

If only the garbage dumping had been stopped (no cull, co CNR), I believe we would still be looking at a hell of a lot of dogs. But the thing is we aren’t.

This seems like evidence that the combination CCNR worked.

[quote]
So there it is in bold, jd. No cut and paste, you comment in its entirety. So whatchya going to teach your kids about the dead cats? That they are pests, and that the cats have no rights? And that the asshole who tossed the cats on your lawn did wrong not so much because he poisoned the cats as much as because he tossed them onto your lawn? Go for it… [/quote]
Funny, you STILL don’t say anything about the taiwan cull of the 1990s.

Why would I TEACH my son anything about the dead cat? Should we have a mock funeral for it? “He was a loud cat. He was a horny cat. We’ll miss you Scratchy.” Some animals ARE pests bob.

I told my son at the time that the neighbor had poisoned the cats because they kept knocking over her garbage can and spreading trash everywhere, walking on her roof and howling like mad all night long.

I didn’t tell him how to judge the situation. I never do. I give him the facts and let him decide. We have a cat and he knows that she has feelings. But he also knows that she is a cat.

Let me give you a little anecdote before I go bob. My son was playing outside on the street in front of his friend’s house in Ying Ge. The other boy had a pellet gun and was shooting at a stray cat under a car. My son, the one raised and educated by the “animal rights denying ethically morbid jdsatan”, my son said, “If you shoot at the cat again, I’m going to tell your Mom.”

He didn’t stop in front of the pellet gun and sobstory him up, “Cats have feeelings. They’re people too.” He figured out the problem via his own little ethical system, and then saught out a solution. he didn’t try to convert the boy to another way of thinking. He solved the problem, neatly and effectively, AND without really offending the other boy.

I have been reading up on the culls in Pakistan, China and India. Many of the culls were NOT followed by CNR prgrams, so of course they failed in the long run. The dogs are still there, more in some cases.

But in Taiwan, now, they aren’t. Not in Taipei, not in Taipei County. Go figure. If you have an alternate explanation for this, I’d love to hear it.

193

jd, go to Taipei Animal Shelter (the Taipei City dog pound) and ask how many dogs they take in and destroy each week (200 killed - that’s 10,000 per year, which, funnily enough, is close to their estimate for how many strays live in Taipei City).

Then ask yourself where the dogs are coming from. If culling worked, this facility would have put itself out of business by now. Think about it.

194

[quote]Funny, you STILL don’t say anything about the taiwan cull of the 1990s. [/quote]Two reasons for that. The first one is gao_bo_han, Stray Dog, and Muzha Man have already answered your query, and also because you provide answers in your own posts. What’s funny is that you do not seem to see that you answer your own query. Why do you need people to repeat what others have already said anyways? That’s what I mean by “this discussion is going around in circles.”

First from MM: [quote=“MM”]JD, this has been answered many times. There were more dogs because garbage was left out on the streets. When the garbage policy changed requiring people to bag it and take it out daily the street dog population dropped as the food source diminished. [/quote]

And you answer your own question here: [quote=“jdsmith”]They culled the street dog population, bad in and of itself because of the imminent population explosion…[/quote]

So… If you understand that CNR is a method used to control stray population, how does it make sense to combine this method with another method that is “bad in itself because of the imminent population explosion,” to use your own words?

gao_bo_han, OTOH has a pretty good handle on how CNR works:

And BTW, I sense that because I express my opinions, you seem to think that I am trying to make you look bad, or that I am trying to convert you or something like that. I don’t care what you think, jd. I really don’t care. What you read here is my honest opinion. If you don’t like it, that’s your problem, not mine. But please stop telling me that I’m trying to convert you, or whatever else along those lines. It’s is only off topic, and another cheap attempt on your part to discredit my opinion without actually addressing my opinion, but rather addressing what you imagine are my motivations for posting my thoughts. I’ve told you before, I post for fun. :slight_smile:

195

[quote=“Stray Dog”]jd, go to Taipei Animal Shelter (the Taipei City dog pound) and ask how many dogs they take in and destroy each week (200 killed - that’s 10,000 per year, which, funnily enough, is close to their estimate for how many strays live in Taipei City).

Then ask yourself where the dogs are coming from. If culling worked, this facility would have put itself out of business by now. Think about it.[/quote]

I don’t need to think about it Sean, because I believe that already. It doesn’t surprise me that they would have to continue to cull dogs IF THERE WERE NO ONGOING CNR PROGRAM INSTITUTED alongsige of the cull.

10,000 dogs. That’s your number. So what was the number of dogs when the garbage was piled high in Taipei?

You may want to believe that the population dropped off to present levels without a cull, but I am not so sure.

In all of these pages, I have only tried to express the fact that the 1990s cull and garbage removal seemed to have a combined benficial effect for removing the huge numbers of dogs from the streets.

IMHO, the big failure here seems to be that an ongoing CNR was not put into place following the cull/garbage removal of the 1990s, not necessarily that the cull itself was a failure.

196

To see the population level off, 67% of the dogs have to be CNRed. Cull, say, 10% of the dogs in addition to the 67% of CNR cases, and the population will less than likely level off. You’ll need to catch, neuter, and return probably 77%(instead of 67%) of the dogs to make up for the resources made available to the remaining intact dogs(23%) through culling. The result is you’ll need to catch 87% of the dogs instead of 67% to see the population level off if 10% of them are killed. Just a rough guess.

This is why:[quote=“jdsmith”]They culled the street dog population, bad in and of itself because of the imminent population explosion…[/quote]

197

Did you take a look at the study I linked to earlier?

Something you might find interesting is that the stray-dog problem wasn’t severe until the rapid urbanization of the Taiwanese populace in the late 80s and early 90s.

[quote]This study notes some important social and demographic trends that may influ-
ence patterns of dog ownership in Taiwan. In particular, and confirming Tai-
wan’s recent phenomenal rate of urban industrialization, we detected a dramatic
movement from rural to urban living among our respondents within their own
lifetimes. In parallel with this rural exodus, there has been a substantial shift in
methods of keeping dogs. More than half (54.2%) of our respondents’ parents
kept their dogs outdoors or allowed them free access to the outdoors. In contrast,
the majority (79%) of current dog owners keep their dogs indoors, presumably
in response to their increasingly urban lifestyles. Although this might appear to
be a positive trend from an animal control perspective, it also may place unusual
strains on the human–canine relationship. The prominence of too much trouble
and behavior problems among the list of reasons why dogs are disowned or
abandoned (discussed later) certainly points to this conclusion.[/quote]

The huge number of strays you mention was a short-term problem. It did not exist before, because the available resources could not sustain that number of dogs healthily, which is why you saw so many thin, mangy dogs during that time. And consider this: throughout that period, catch-and-kill was the sole method of controlling the stray population. It did not work. Let’s see what did:

[quote]In October 1998, in response to this and obvious public health concerns, the
Taiwan government approved a new Animal Protection Law requiring (a) manda-
tory registration of dogs, (b) substantial dog registration fees, © fines for people
who abandon companion animals, and (d) veterinary supervision of all animal
control shelter euthanasia. Euthanasia methods in some local government shelters
previously had included unsupervised electrocution, gassing, drowning, poison-
ing, and starvation (Leney & Marks, 1996). In addition, some municipalities insti-
tuted improved garbage disposal regimes to reduce the amount of waste food
available to strays, and a number of new, state-of-the-art animal shelters were con-
structed at public expense. These efforts appear to have been partly successful, at
least in the short term. According to recent surveys conducted in the city of Taipei,
the stray dog population declined from 55,000 to 18,000 between July 1999 and
July 2000, despite a small increase in the owned or pet dog population during the
same period (Fei, 1999; Kuo, 2000).[/quote]

So, what is the way forward, according to the study? Take a look:

[quote]It is somewhat doubtful whether Taiwanese cultural resistance to euthanasia
and shelter relinquishment can be overcome, at least in the short term. It may,
therefore, be more appropriate to capitalize on Taiwanese willingness to feed, care
for, and adopt homeless dogs by exploring ways of managing existing
free-roaming animals in situ in ways comparable to the various trap–neuter–vacci-
nate–release programs used increasingly to manage feral cat colonies in the United
States (Slater, 2002). This, however, would require a fundamental change in prior-
ities on the part of both government and animal protection agencies.[/quote]

And this study was funded by the Humane Society of the United States, who are usually strongly in favour of euthanasia.

198

Sean, I don’t wanna sift the thread. Can you relink that study?

[quote]
This, however, would require a fundamental change in prior-
ities on the part of both government and animal protection agencies.[/quote]

So is it pragmatic? The problem as I see it, is not simply what SHOULD be done, but what CAN be done, and what IS WILLING to be done.

199

Anything new will require a change, of course. Pragmatic doesn’t mean ‘stuff we have tried before’.

The link: http://www.animalstaiwan.org/items/taiwan_strays.pdf

200

[quote]So let’s look at what COULD have happened:

Thousands of strays dogs that will SURELY starve to death and die right on the streets. Or would they ALL migrate out of the city? I doubt it. I think they would have gone straight to the temples and night/morning markets. That’s where the food is. So now the dogs, hungrier than ever are heading to places loaded with people. Bad idea.[/quote]

I think what you are saying is that by culling, the government prevented the situation of having thousands of hungry dogs invading people-populated areas in search for food. However, I seem to recall from the links that in India they also removed food sources in addition to the mass CNR campaigns. Right? And yet I didn’t read anything about hungry dogs invading people-populated areas and causing trouble. Now I don’t think there is much of a difference of taking away a dog’s food source and letting it starve to death and rounding it up and killing it. In fact, it may even be more humane. The problem is, the preponderance of the evidence leads us to believe that culling results in artificial population explosions. As I said, it is possible that in Taiwan this is exactly what happened (albeit on a smaller scale than if 100% of the food sources were still present), but was mitigated over the years by the lack of food sources. The truth is that we may never know for sure whether the culling aspect of Taiwan’s anti-stray campaign was necessary or helpful. It is pure speculation unless we get more data.

So I repeat: It is more logical to adopt a proven method of drastically reducing the stray population than by acting on conjecture and speculation and implementing a possibly counter-productive program.