Stray dog problem

Life Pets & Domestic Animals
21

I’m on record as being against the current animal treatment methods here. That said I feel for people like Maoman who simply want to use public spaces, but are prevented from doing so because the spaces are infested with packs of aggressive wild dogs. The problems of pet ownership, abandonment, how to deal with strays and so on are beyond the ability of any individual to cope with— certainly the sollution suggested in this thread would take a large amount of people and cash to impliment. I don’t think a busy mortal is going to realistically be able to do such a thing.

While I think that proposals to fine those who feed abandoned dogs are idiotic, I think removing proven dangerous dogs is necessary for public safety. Certainly, humane societies where I come from have policies to put down dogs that pose a threat to humans. I’d not feel too great about doing so, but if I felt either myself or others were at risk from a group of aggressive dogs, I think I’d have them removed. Yeah, more dogs would move in, but my experience with strays here is that the vast majority display no aggressive bahviour toward us. I think chances are the next pooches would be better.

22

I believe you, but I don’t believe they’ll come back immediately. I think I might get a grace period of days, weeks, possibly even months! I’ll take what I can get.[/quote]

I said a bit tongue in cheek in the other stray thread that the situation now is a quagmire, but it is really, isn’t it?

Who’s to say that completely ridding the area is strays, and then careful monitoring of the area afterwards, getting the new dogs, if they come, neutered, and keeping the food supply low, having them scavenging, not being fed by locals, wouldn’t be the best possible solution?

Isn’t it easier to teach prevention from a nuetral environment, than to ask people to change their behavior and beliefs in a situation that seems/is overwhelming?

I am willing to compromise my beliefs, if what Sean says is true, that other dogs WILL return to a “cleaned” area, I can’t imagine jusitfying repeatedly culling them. But damn man, culling them and starting a preventative educational program from the ground up is sounding more plausable than reversing the flow of the population via CNR.

23

Those dogs are there because that woman comes and feeds them. Maybe you’d better talk to her, because as long as she provides food, dogs will keep going to that area. If these dogs are removed, the others will move in for the food she provides.

24

[quote=“urodacus”]
i’d rather have no strays at all… and CNR programs are only useful if people stop dumping fresh ones.[/quote]

Did you absorb anything I wrote in the other thread?

Now you’re talking. Add an enforced microchipping at sale, and you have a solution that cannot possibly fail.

Damn. Just as you were starting to make sense. (Just kidding - I just don’t see why we need breeders when you’re so keen to lower the stray population. Huskies, German shepherds, Labs, etc. make just as good strays as mixed breeds.)

OK! You finished on a good note! :wink:

25

Realistically, I can’t see Maoman putting out NT$20K to get CNR done on these dogs, nor can I see the idea being of great allure to others living there. And so you chip them – who is responsible for them after that? Do Maoman and the others who chip in then become the de facto “owners” of these dogs, that they don’t want around in the first place?

I’m sorry, but sometimes people make it sound as though stray wild dogs are some sort of endangered species whose habitat is being threatened. If these animals were deer in a managed forest, they would be culled for the well-being of the herd, and to prevent encroachment.

I’m also unclear as to why people are so against a fine for those feeding strays. If this is the behavior that directly leads to collections of dogs in public places, it should be regulated if people won’t take the common sense to do so themselves.

And Maoman is right: there were FAR more stray dogs in Taipei, at least, in the 1980 and early 1990s. FAR more.

26

[quote=“Poagao”]Those dogs are there because that woman comes and feeds them. Maybe you’d better talk to her, because as long as she provides food, dogs will keep going to that area. If these dogs are removed, the others will move in for the food she provides.[/quote]Chances are, the dogs are aggressive because they instinctively protect that food source via trying to chase away new comers the like of Maoman. The dogs just don’t know that Maoman is well fed and that he is not interested in eating their food… Or is he? :wink:

I advocate feeding starving animals(backed up with CNR, education, etc), but if they become aggressive, and a threat to people, I think that something needs to be done about it. I would like to see the animals strive, but I would also like for people to be safe outside their house. In fact, I think that the safety of humans should come first. Dealing with feces is one thing, but dealing with the physical threat of being attacked by strays is another story altogether. There is no guarantee that CNR would work in a situation like this. It would help control the population, but other changes are necessary to reduce the amount of aggresivity the dogs are displaying, IMO. I suspect the dogs are fed, but not enough, and that amplifies their need to protect their food source. Neutering them will not change that. It will help other factors that contribute to their aggressive behavior, but sadly, I doubt it will turn these dogs into lovable mutts. So what gives?

I think that the first thing to do would be to identify which dogs are instigators, which dogs lead the pack to attack. These dogs should be removed, sadly. I would like to see them neutered and relocated instead, but in my experience, these dogs are trouble no matter what you do, unless you take them home and re-rehabilitate them. Even then, they will be handful pets. Some dogs have high energy levels, and unless the caretaker is well experienced training them, they will keep trying to dominate the pack, either it’s other dogs or humans living with them in the same house/yard/neighborhood. So yes, in a situation like this, in order to avoid culling them all to restore the environment they spoil, some dogs would have to be removed, IMO.

This said, I doubt it’s necessary to remove all of them, nor would doing so solve the problem, as Sean wisely pointed out. Better to remove the aggressive dogs and CNR the remaining ones.

In addition to that, if a lady is feeding the dogs, she should be persuaded to feed them somewhere else if at all possible. Far enough from where people hang out so that the dogs would feel secure as far as their regular food supply is concerned.

Makes sense to me. Remove the trouble makers, and CNR the ones that will not attack people. This way you effectively control the population while restoring the environment. Easier said than done, I know. As Sean mentioned, it requires for people to get involved. It requires gathering of important information, and it requires man power and funding.

I find it unfortunate that as a direct result of people’s mistakes, guys like Maoman and urodacus end up looking at strays as if they are vermin hardly worth any consideration, but at the same time, I can understand their frustrations, and the challenges it represents for them to appreciate the four legged bastards. At first, I thought Maoman was spamming his own bulletin board with innuendo threads, but I come to realize that experiences such as what he describes here really shine the light on his position, and I don’t blame the guy one bit.

This said, if I’m not mistaking, Sean offered to help this situation, and I hope that you guys can work together to find and implement a decent solution that caters to both Maoman’s and other’s basic need for safety, and Animals Taiwan aim to solve animals related issues in a humane way. At the end of the day, the OP asked for the best strategy in order to solve this problem, and I think that’s as good as it’s going to get.

Cheers!

27

It’s a sad world we live in when a community chooses to murder other beings for their own convenience rather than hold a small fundraiser or apply to the government for funds to undertake a humane and effective approach to claiming back a small piece of land for one’s weekly meanderings.

The fact that they can find ways to do it in India, but we, the representatives of the educated and culturally superior West, can’t see past the first hurdle doesn’t give me much confidence in the proliferation of humanity.

And there were far more strays in the early 1990’s because there was more garbage. Read the studies on our website.

28

I don’t think chipping them is a good idea at all, Ironlady. Why would you? And why would anyone become the de facto owners?

No, just that they’re fellow beings. People aren’t endangered either, but we don’t go suggesting murdering them on mass if they shout at us when we walk in their territory.

Is that really the best you can come up with, as an educated individual? Killing of fellow beings as a first choice?

Bring on the flood, I say. :unamused:

29

People are people.
Dogs are dogs.
Hamsters are hamsters.
Roaches are roaches.

Are they all equal? Where do you draw the line?

This whole thing is like an argument between Catholics and Protestants about Communion. If you can’t settle the whole issue of whether transubstantiation occurs or not, you’re not going to get anywhere on the details of what sort of chalice would be best.

And one’s beliefs in terms of whether humans and animals have the same rights do not depend on whether one is educated or not. I’m perfectly well-educated. I just don’t happen to agree with your basic premise.

30

[quote=“ironlady”]People are people.
Dogs are dogs.
Hamsters are hamsters.
Roaches are roaches.

Are they all equal? Where do you draw the line?

[/quote]Good question. Where do YOU draw the line? Seeing that you compare insects with mammals, I’d like to know.

31

Same rights? Dogs should die so we can walk in their part if the mountain every other weekend? Are you sure you are looking at this with all that education you got, Ironlady? :wink:

And it’s quite a claim to say that you’re perfectly well-educated, Ironlady! Many people claim to be well educated, but none of them perfectly so! (Or did you mean that you were perfectly well educated?) :laughing:

I’m not being as antagonistic as you might think; I’m merely pointing out how we so often believe we are oh so right when to those in the know we are not. :wink:

32

[quote=“Stimpy”]I’m on record as being against the current animal treatment methods here. That said I feel for people like Maoman who simply want to use public spaces, but are prevented from doing so because the spaces are infested with packs of aggressive wild dogs. The problems of pet ownership, abandonment, how to deal with strays and so on are beyond the ability of any individual to cope with— certainly the sollution suggested in this thread would take a large amount of people and cash to impliment. I don’t think a busy mortal is going to realistically be able to do such a thing.

While I think that proposals to fine those who feed abandoned dogs are idiotic, I think removing proven dangerous dogs is necessary for public safety. Certainly, humane societies where I come from have policies to put down dogs that pose a threat to humans. I’d not feel too great about doing so, but if I felt either myself or others were at risk from a group of aggressive dogs, I think I’d have them removed. Yeah, more dogs would move in, but my experience with strays here is that the vast majority display no aggressive bahviour toward us. I think chances are the next pooches would be better.[/quote]
I forgot to mention… Solid post Stimpy, once again… :notworthy:

Oh and jd, Sean called for a flood to eradicate human beings. Aren’t you going to say something? Isn’t that a tad antagonistic? :laughing:

33

When it comes to the welfare, health or safety of humans, the line is drawn right underneath humans with regard to the possible use of lethal force to control a situation (except in situations like Hannibal Lecter, etc. which might merit a shoot-on-sight). We’re not talking about mere annoyance value here – we’re talking about packs of dogs that are quite capable of killing a child or seriously injuring an adult, and often show the signs of being quite willing to do so. If somebody climbs into the lion enclosure at the zoo, they have to expect to be mauled a bit, but taking a walk in one’s own community should not come under that category.

And I can’t see how someone can say “There are fewer dogs now because there is no garbage left out” and then in the next breath say “Feeding strays should not be penalized.” The effect is the same. If getting rid of food in the form of garbage left lying on the street had a good effect in ridding Taipei of stray dog packs, then eliminating food sources left by well-meaning but misguided people will do the same – and in Taiwan, the most direct connection to the brain often runs through the pocketbook (meaning a fine).

34

What if that person had also said we should slowly reduce the amount of food fed to strays as well as offering proven techniques that really work to reduce and eventually eradicate stray animals?

Reading the comments here about ‘I want them gone now so I’m gonna call the dogcatchers’ is like watching a little kid say he doesn’t like starfish so he’s gonna chop them all in two - the techniques you wish to employ are the ones that any idiot would think of; try looking at the whole problem and the reality of the situation, though, as your well-thought-out suggestion may actually make matters worse, even though it is the first one that comes to most people’s minds.

We all want the same thing. But you need to educate yourself as to what works and what doesn’t. The World Health Organization did, and that’s why they recommend mass sterilization and vaccination of stray animals as opposed to the knee-jerk “kill 'em all” reaction.

35

And you feel that imposing fines on those who feed these animals would not be a good way of slowly reducing the food supply?

The starfish analogy makes no sense at all to this argument. Stray dogs are a menace in many cases. They present a direct threat of harm to human beings who “dare” to enter “their territory” – which in densely-populated Taiwan is often residential areas. I’ve personally see a little old woman out walking her pet dog in Taipei past a temple – until out of nothing a stray materialized and killed it. It could just as well have been a child.

Cows don’t commit suicide to make beef, either. But I doubt you’re a vegetarian.

And once again, and more to the point – you still haven’t told me who in Taiwan is going to pay to have these thousands of dogs sterilized.

36

I think in the case of the stray dog population in Taiwan, the quick fix isn’t going to work. Quick fixes seldom are long-lasting, regardless of the problem.

I sympathize with people who are bothered by aggressive strays. But, the problem, as is often the case, starts with irresponsible people. It will take a concerted effort and broad support to actually do something about the problem. I believe that Sean’s approach, though not a quick fix, is the approach with the best chance of success.

37

Who should pay thousands of dollars to neuter the dogs? Well, people do pay taxes to the government in order for the government to do a good job of running a country, as well as create and maintain healthy, pleasant and safe areas for the citizens of that country to enjoy.

Ideally, as I said in the previous thread, the government should sponsor CNR programs, and educate its populace as to why not to dump animals, why to get them neutered etc. It’s also their responsibility to educate people about why not to litter, why not to dump loads of trash in wilderness areas, why to wear helmets on scooters, why not to drive through red lights, etc etc. It’s also their responsibility to enforce the laws of the country and uphold and maintain standards.

I did not mean to imply, as another poster inferred, that people should be free to litter and that it should be the government’s responsibility to clean it up.

However, in case you haven’t noticed, despite the fact that most people know that littering makes a place look dirty and unattractive, some do it anyway. That’s why there are people payed by the govt to be street sweepers. Get it?

Ideally, measures should be put in place to prevent people doing something like this in the first place. Ie, fines for littering. Or, feeding stray dogs, as some would suggest. Maybe hit the dumpers of strays, the pet shops, the puppy mills with much harsher fines than are presently imposed, and a compulsory microchipping and sterilisation law is what I’d say, but that’s just me.

So. People don’t get their pets neutered, get bored when puppy is no longer cute, and dump him in the nearest (or furthest away) park. Puppy becomes dog, dog meets bitch, new batch of puppies. Same old cycle again and again. Jogger runs through park. Dog chases jogger. Jogger calls dog catchers. Dog and family are taken away, and killed. A few months later, jogger walks past pet store, sees puppy with big sad eyes, perfect gift for little daughter. Fast forward to phase 1 → puppy is no longer cute…

So, what we’re essentially saying here, is that the whole thing should be blamed on puppy/dog. He and his kind are in my park. I don’t like him there. I don’t want to step in dog shit. I don’t want to get chased. So, f**k him, the only solution is death. There we go, park empty and squeaky clean (aside from binlang spit, polystyrene tea cups, used chopsticks, dog shit from pet dogs)… Until jogger (from previous paragraph) from other side of town swings by my park to drop off no-longer-cute dog. Shit, same old, same old. Oh well, just a goddam dog, no better than the roach I just stepped on. Let’s call the dog catcher again. Hey, did that car just throw a dog out the window and drive off? Oh well, whatever, the dog catcher will be here tomorrow. Look there, there’s that old bat who gives food to these vermin! I’m off to give her a piece of my mind. Stupid old cow! I almost stepped in dog shit because of her! I mean, there was just one dog here, then she left out a bowl of food, the next day there were about 500 or so! She should be in prison!

So, that’s how the story goes. So whose responsibility is it to solve this problem?

Let’s try another example*. (*fictional, I don’t have any kids)

My kid has to cross a busy road to get to school every day. A few days ago, another kid from her school got knocked over by some scooter punk driving like a monkey. Yesterday, as I dropped my son off, he also almost got hit by some dumb scooter jockey. So, I pulled scooterboy off his scoot, and beat the shit out of him. I’m sure that solved the problem.

2 weeks later. Jeezus, it happened again! some dumb shit nearly rode over my son again! Man, almost broke my wrist with the beating I gave that fella. Well, it’s ok, the street was safe after those other scooter morons saw what I did to that guy.

Another 2 weeks later. Shit! Another maniac on a scooter! I brought in the baseball bat this time…

See where this is going? Treat the symptoms, and it does nothing to eliminate the root cause. Is the government going to eliminate the source of the problem? It sure as shit is theirresponsibility to keep the streets safe for pedestrians by enforcing traffic laws and ensuring that drivers are educated and responsible. But have they lived up to this? Look around you!

So how do you ensure that your son has safe passage across the road when he walks to school? The government’s not doing anything about it. Well, unfortunately, someone is gonna have to put in some time and money. Parents get together, buy a few stop sign boards and pay a part-time crossing guard to allow the kids to walk across the street safely. Put up signs all around the school area saying “slow down!”. Make sense?

So, back to the dog example, you can go with the knee-jerk response, which will work for short term periods before returning to exactly the same state as before. Of course, it requires nothing but the 2 minutes and few dollars of a phone call on your part. But then nobody has much of a right to complain when another, possibly more aggressive stray moves in, and bites someone before the next round of dogcatchers arrive to eliminate it.

The most reasonable solution posted here is probably the one about removing the most aggressive and dangerous dogs, and CNRing the rest. Yes, unfortunately that’s gonna cost some time and money. There are groups like AnimalsTaiwan who can help to make things much easier and smoother for you, but it will require some effort on your part. But don’t all problems that require some long-term solution take a bit of effort to solve?

Oh well, doesn’t matter. As with most topics here, people already have their minds completely set and made up before even reading and considering them. Feel free to pick this apart and show why your way is right and mine wrong. Seems to be more important than actually finding a real solution.

38

Sean makes a hell of a better argument than you do bob, and when he is being facetious it is easily seen. He also doesn’t throw around strawmen or try to demean people because they don’t see eye to eye with him over the value of animals.

Now that Sean has said that the food supply should be “reduced” please tell me how that runs contrary to fining people who feed strays. Not everyone will obey the law, but as Ironlady writes, hitting the Taiwanese in the pocketbook will deter some if not many people from feeding them. Doesn’t that “reduce the food supply?”

Tigerman just wrote:

[quote]
I sympathize with people who are bothered by aggressive strays. But, the problem, as is often the case, starts with irresponsible people. It will take a concerted effort and broad support to actually do something about the problem. I believe that Sean’s approach, though not a quick fix, is the approach with the best chance of success.[/quote]
I agree that it needs to be a long term program to reduce the stray population, but the endgame must be understood and clear. The long term goal should be the total elimination of strays, not simply a reduction of their numbers. Some want to do this “humanely” but I feel doing it the humane way is simply prologing the process.

There has to be an agreement on the ultimate goal. And sustaining the stray population as a goal does not make sense.

oh, and goodmorning! :rainbow:

39

One way would be a very, very small percentage of the monthly lotto proceedings. I believe such a practice has been successfully implemented by lottery commisions elsewhere.

But, speaking of menaces to society. Does anyone know about these humans who get behind the wheel of vehicles? Every single day they are smashing into something. Some of them are just plain wreckless jerks and some of them go driving while drunk. And everyday innocent people are being killed and maimed because of them. Wouldn’t the best thing to do is have these vehicles removed off the face of the earth? And also punish and fine all establishments serving alcohol to humans! I mean you just don’t know…they could get behind the wheel, and every single frickin day they are smashing into something or ripping limbs off someone.

40

trapjaw wrote:[quote]
Oh well, doesn’t matter. As with most topics here, people already have their minds completely set and made up before even reading and considering them. Feel free to pick this apart and show why your way is right and mine wrong. Seems to be more important than actually finding a real solution.[/quote]

I think this thread is great way to get the issues all out in the open. Sure people will disagree, but maybe in viewing all sides maturely, we all may benefit from some new insight.

Now, on to the picking! :laughing:
After this thread and others like it, I now have no illusions that any one time solution will solve this problem. Changing the minds of people that CAUSE this problem will not be easy or quick. And of course the dogs are not at fault, but they are a problem, and in some cases a dangerous problem.

The more I learn about this situation, the better, however it doesn’t mean I’m going to become a mirror image of Stray Dog. God forbid! :wink:

I have lived here for a long time, and believe me when I say the problem now is nothing, nothing what it was a decade ago. Removing the garbage and the dogs from the streets HAS worked to greatly reduced the stray population. IMO, doing another sweep like that and starting a vigorous CNR education program will teach people that they can alter their behavior and avoid this problem, their man made problem, in the future.