Aiming for the females is very effective for rapidly reducing numbers but can actually make aggression and other unwanted behaviour much worse (males fight more with fewer females to compete over, amongst other things).
With this in mind, we aim to neuter all dogs, regardless of gender.[/quote]
Ok, so neuter the females, and give the males playstations. It works in most households!
[quote=“Dragonbones”]What do you think of the following plan, then?
Yes!
The only point I would contend is that dogs tend to be aggressive when intact or with pups or around intact females; an aggressive intact dog is quite likely to be an unaggressive sterilized dog. But if we had to compromise, I would sadly …
I prefer TC’s suggestion.
If I had a kid (one day, when someone is foolish enough to love me enough), I would want her to grow up in a world where humane solutions were the norm, wouldn’t you?
But it’s great that you’re looking at other ways of keeping the problem at bay.
At the AnimalsTaiwan holding centre, it’s very peaceful until a stray comes wandering past (to go visit the intact female in the construction company next door). We tolerated it for a while and did our best to quieten our dogs, but then I just decided that there must be a better way. The next time a stray wandered down our lane, I ran at him like an incensed madman and chased him away. He hasn’t been back. I’m guessing I spoke to him in his own language: this is my domain and you are not welcome.
So, give something like that a try. Maybe mark the trees in the lane? Perhaps when you’re daughter isn’t looking? 
Before I add anything, jd, let me apologise for having been very unclear in my last rant/post which was directed at you, and off topic at that. I just re-read my last post, and I made it sound like your opinions in this debates are driven by your dislike for me. It’s regrettable because it’s not what I was trying to say. I worded things wrong, and I made it sound as if you have a hidden agenda in terms of your position in this debate. I don’t think that’s the case. I think that as far as you position in the debate is concerned, you are consistent, and honest.
I don’t agree with your position, and I think you need to educate yourself in order to understand better what works, and what doesn’t work. If Sean has helped you with better understanding things such as CNR, as you mentioned, then that’s great.
The point I failed to make altogether in my earlier post is not in regards to your opinions on the topic itself. The point is in regards to your comments about me being antagonistic and such. I take great offense to that because as far as I am concerned, I have done nothing but expressing my opinion in this debate without any intentions to demean anyone. Surely, 20 pages of discussions within a couple days shows that the subject is a sensible one to many, including myself. So naturally, and given the controversial nature of this debate, I think that you will read strong opinions that oppose to yours. You will read strong opinions that oppose to other posters opinions, too.
I have gotten into the worse flame war with you in the mods forum recently. The worse I’ve ever gotten into with anyone. A part of it is because the mod forum is not moderated… Near the end of the said flame war, you basically admitted that a big reason why things got so heated up is because you simply do not like me. Like I said, I don’t think that your opinions in this thread are driven by this dislike you have for me. I do however think that if things got heated between you and I in the past, and that you admit that a big reason for that was because you dislike me, I can’t see that pattern not replicating itself. That’s why I think that your claims that I am antagonistic, and countless other comments re; my posting style, my demeaning/alienating other posters, etc are, however, driven by the same motivations that drove you to heat things up in the past, and many, many times, since then.
You keep saying these things, but when I ask you to provide quotes to back up your allegations, you have nothing. I’ve written many long posts in this debate, and I would assume that you would have a lot to work with to back up what you say; to put your money where your mouth is, but you provided one quote, and you misquoted me at that.
On the other hand, I provided you with some things that have been said by someone else to show your inconsistency in that regard. For example, I have not called anyone idiots for having different opinions than mine. The point is, when someone else says these things, it flies smoothly with you, but when I say it, you make it stand out like a sore thumb. That’s not right. I have not said anything to antagonize, or alienate anyone. I simply express strong opinions in a very controversial subject.
Again, I wrote a lot in this debate, and if you can not back your claims with quoting the very statements which you find are alienating other posters or which you find antagonistic, I don’t think it’s fair that you make these claims. I for one find it antagonistic of you. I, OTOH, have been told that I lack logic, that I am antagonistic, alienating and demonizing other posters. Can you see the irony here?
[quote=“jdsmith”] You have taken up this cause and because you personally feel it is noble you seem to expect all others to think so too?[/quote]Quote please. [quote] Caring for animals? I have absolutely no problem with that. Educating people about proper pet care? Great. Keep up the good work. But when it comes to having a discussion about how to go about solving social problems with strays, we disagree.[/quote]Yes, obviously, but that doesn’t mean I do not respect your opinion, nor that I am alienating you, demonizing you, or being antagonistic. [quote] I think I made that point in the other thread. I do not believe people are responsible for “lesser” animals because we can think logically. [/quote]That’s fine. It’s your opinion, and you are fully entitled to it. [quote]I am not the only one in that thread who disagrees with you,[/quote]Fair enough, but others disagree with you, too. So what’s your point? How does that make me antagonistic? [quote]I am not the only person who says that you cry foul everytime someone criticizes your POV.[/quote]I may have missed a post, but I’ve only read this from you in this debate. Quotes please. If you are referring to other threads and other discussions in the past, then it’s irrelevant, and against the rules. Besides, it has a red herring effect, either intentional or not.
[quote]I am doing my best to remain emotionally unattached to this thread and the other and to present my thoughts as clearly as possible. I am also open to suggestions on how to better perceive this problem,[/quote]Fair enough, as I said my intention was not to comments on your posts, but only on your demeaning comments toward me. [quote]Simply put, I don’t think you want to educate people here, but rather tell them how “selfish” they are.[/quote] Of course not, because you don’t like me, you admitted to it, and you even admitted that it was a major factor as to why we butt heads. You don’t have to like me, I don’t care at all. Well, I’d prefer if you did not dislike me, but I can’t help it so I’m not going to lose sleep over it. The point is, it’s unfair to make claims such as the above without backing it up somehow. Again, quotes please.
[quote]You say you don’t demean people. OK, that’s your opinion. How about alienate them? Is that a better term?[/quote]No it’s not a better term, unless you can quote the part where I do that, and make a solid argument to back up this claim. It’s not fair. Quotes please.
[quote] You do a good thing, no doubt about it. Because I and others do not do what you do to the extent you do though, is not reason to look down at us. [/quote]The worse, the very worse I have said in this debate, jd, is that I find it selfish to let dogs die of starvation, and I sustain my opinion. That is not looking down at you, it’s my opinion in a very controversial topic. Of course in controversy such as this some opinions will not sound glorifying to your person. It’s bloody controversy. Again, it’s not fair, and if I did say anything worse than “it’s selfish” then show us some quotes, please.
[quote]We all don’t judge and value our lives in the same manner. To each their own. You appear to judge yourself by the work you do with animals. I honestly don’t mind that you judge yourself in this way (if you do, I suspect you do, if not, well, let me know and I won’t say it again); however, you can’t judge me the same way.[/quote]I haven’t really thought about all that, jd. I was thinking about the poor dogs who will starve if we follow your logic, but you seem to think this is casting an unduly judgment over you. Beats me. Quotes please. [quote]And it certainly would predjudice any discussion we would have. I don’t judge you the way I judge myself, as a great dancer, because that would be unfair to you.[/quote] And I don’t judge you either. Take my word for it, or leave it. Better yet, provide quotes where I did judge you. I can easily provide worse things other people said in this thread, including some of the things you wrote to my attention.
[quote]So there we are. 
[/quote]Yes, there we are. I asked you for quotes to back up all your claims, but frankly, it doesn’t matter to me. I just say that to show that you have not supported any of your allegations. None.
I post on Forumosa for fun. I don’t have a hidden agenda either, nor do I think that expressing my opinions on a bulletin board will change the faith of the stray dogs in Taiwan. It’s all just for fun, and yes, sometimes the topic heats up a little, but there is no need to make all these claims, jd. And I do suspect that you do that for the same reasons that you admitted having antagonized me not that long ago. That’s what’s not fair, because I don’t find it quite as fun when you do that. Of course you’ll say that it’s not true, and that your claims have nothing to do with the fact that you dislike me, and you’ll most likely make more similar claims. Point is, that’s what you admitted to having done in a not so distant past, and I don’t think you’ve had a change of heart since then.
Cheers!
I think these personal exchanges should be conducted via PM. It’s taking the focus off the issue at hand, an issue that is of great interest to a lot of people here. This latest in a long line of spats between you and JD is of no interest whatsoever to anyone else. The topic at hand is stray dog management, not you and JD.
[quote=“Stray Dog”]
I really don’t see the point of the culling pre-CNR. The poisoner got many of the dogs and already some have moved in. If we are to CNR, we need to get 67 percent of the population. If you cull a large number of the dogs, you have no idea of the number of dogs about to move in. But, it might be safe to say that the 6 strays would probably be replaced by 6 more, right? The ones moving in have left an area that others can move into, and there will be the population explosion, albeit smaller as the resources probably weren’t so good.
You need to know your CNR target. Culling means destroying the known dogs. Then you have to wait for those who would move in to do just that, so you can be sure your study will not be affected by more moving in during or after the cull that you propose. And you would have to gain the trust of these new dogs, etc. I’m not being argumentative; I really can’t see the point of culling first, other than to give some short-term satisfaction to those who are fed up with the problem. 
[/quote]
Sean, I am trying to figure in the human part of the Taiwan Equation. Without the community involved I do not see that any area would stay stable in a CNR environment, especially ungated areas where new dogs could be dropped off or arrive on their own.
Clearly it has to be the community that assumes responsibility for a successful area, not (no offense) a random animal rights guy/gal. How do you get the community on board then?
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. The skeptical rest want results faster. A pre-emptive cull, would send a message to the community that “We are making a serious effort to sort this problem out” and you could add in, “AND we will NOT cull again. We will CNR every dog that comes into the area, puppies will be taken away and immediately put up for adoption, and if not adopted given to a long term holding facility, or as a last result, put down.”
Once the program has begun, the real animall lovers could pick up the slack work, logging in new dogs, making sure they get fixed, handling controlled feeding and continuing to educate the community, especially the kids. (Someone mentioned forcing the community watch the animals get captured and culled. I agree with that too. Who would ever want to see that twice?)
That “short term satisfaction” might get a lot of animal neutral Taiwanese people on board. Please remember something Ironlady said: We are in Taiwan and the Taiwanese are going to have to do most of the footwork, unless we are going to place longterm foreign stray dog missionaries around the island. Stop expecting the Taiwanese locals to behave in ways that we are accustomed to. I think that’s wise advice.
We have ALL been saying this is a human problem, so we must figure the affected humans figured into the solution, and stop harping on the buttmonkeys who dump dogs. If the community is into the program and can see quick results, they will be more willing to write down the number of a car or truck dumping dogs in their crib.
oh, and Bobepine, I just scanned your very long post when I previewed this. Save it. Maybe it could be enough for you that I honestly feel that you are disrespectful and condescending to posters who disagree with you; so is Sean at times, and it has been mentioned in this or the other thread. So am I and so are others.
Spare me sifting through your posts to pull out what I perceive as your failures as a poster, and maybe you can do the same for me. If I want to do that…again, I’ll send you a PM. Don’t wait up. This topic is a great interest to me and others. And it keeps getting better. You can quit me anytime you like. 
And let’s get back to the topic.
Arsehole.
Re. the pre-CNR cull, I remember having a meeting with Vay and the mayor of Linkou, and how he (the mayor) was insistent on killing 100 dogs as there had been a number of complaints recently about them. We gave him hard facts about why this would not work (why 100, for instance?) and why it would be better to CNR but remove dangerous or truly nuisance dogs. He wasn’t interested; he wanted something that would look good for his constituents.
Many dogs suffered capture, imprisonment and death. Many new ones were born, and they now await the same fate. The point is, those things look good to Joe Blow, but is it worth instigating the killing of innocent fellow beings just to make people feel that something is happening, when it really isn’t?
I truly believe that if the facts are presented properly and all concerns addressed, the public will get behind a more humane (and effective) approach, without letting them have the taste of blood first.
But I do understand what you’re saying. Have a look at the pictures (and read the Chinese if you can) on that Garden City website - imagine how good they feel knowing they are doing something effective and right, with everyone, man and fellow beast, a winner. And no blood spilled.
Sandman wrote [quote]I think these personal exchanges should be conducted via PM. It’s taking the focus off the issue at hand, an issue that is of great interest to a lot of people here. This latest in a long line of spats between you and JD is of no interest whatsoever to anyone else. The topic at hand is stray dog management, not you and JD.[/quote]
Well, it’s not just between these two. Unfortunately, this thread is another example of the pet crusaders’ self-righteousness and patronizing attitude of supeiority. There are some good, informative posts but these are often marred by snide comments. It’s a pity because they do a lot of good work. But as it stands now, they are doing a pretty bad PR job here on Forumosa.
Well, it’s not just between these two. Unfortunately, this thread is another example of the pet crusaders’ self-righteousness and patronizing attitude of supeiority. There are some good, informative posts but these are often marred by snide comments. It’s a pity because they do a lot of good work. But as it stands now, they are doing a pretty bad PR job here on Forumosa.[/quote]
I think this post is the worst. Is that because we’re on different sides?
Pet crusader? Self-righteous? Superior? Are these the labels you are giving me? Because I’ll wear them proudly. I also know why people make comments like that, so I’m having a little snigger to myself, too.
AJ, have we or have we not presented you(?) and others with a solid, effective, proven solution and similar arguments for why random killing of strays will not give you what you want? It’s pretty clear to me that most of the people here are actually seeking the same thing, and, as i see it, are actually working towards a workable compromise that truly suits everyone.
So, I feel your comments a little out of place and perhaps damaging to the debate, but I appreciate your standpoint nonetheless and respect them enough to respond to them here.
Sean, your over-zealous, morally superior, self-righteous pet crusader 
That road maoman was taking about goes right behind my house. The dogs often come down to my fence and drive my dog and the neighbours dogs mad. There seem to be about four or five adults who repeatedly keep having pups then I see the pups following the adults around for a while before they disappear who survive to adulthood and start inbreeding.
Oftentimes I hear they dogs growling and fighting and once saw the mangled body of pup, would the other dogs have torn it apart? That’s what it sounded like.
Also I went on the path a couple times with my kids but I just got too scared and turned back but some other frinds have done it and reached a lake with no problems. They said people left food along the path for the dogs.
Like I said, it’s not a big pack and I never see any outside dogs join their group so I don’t think it would be hard to CNR .
Arsehole.[/quote]
:brokenheart: 
[quote]
Re. the pre-CNR cull, I remember having a meeting with Vay and the mayor of Linkou, and how he (the mayor) was insistent on killing 100 dogs as there had been a number of complaints recently about them. We gave him hard facts about why this would not work (why 100, for instance?) and why it would be better to CNR but remove dangerous or truly nuisance dogs. He wasn’t interested; he wanted something that would look good for his constituents.[/quote]
This is exactly what I am saying. But you are not seeing that by looking good to his constituents he will get more people on the bandwagon to do the footwork for the longterm program. You cannot ignore the polical realities if you want these programs to succeed.
And I believe that most voters are lazy and stupid and have no desire to learn anything; so you make them learn. Getting dogs off the streets gets their attention. Education follows and they can decide then to keep it clean or let it return to the way it was before.
But please, don’t get me wrong, if they are continuing to cull the new dogs without implementing the CNR program and cutting back on the food supply and not continuing to educate adults and kids and organize animal rights groups, then their chances of suceeding are slim due to their own damn ignorant neglegence.
[quote]
But I do understand what you’re saying. Have a look at the pictures (and read the Chinese if you can) on that Garden City website - imagine how good they feel knowing they are doing something effective and right, with everyone, man and fellow beast, a winner. And no blood spilled.[/quote][/quote]
I will do that, and thanks.
This is not an easy discussion for anyone as I mentioned to you last night and I truly appreciate your (and others’) help in illuminating the problems and offering some solutions, even though I may not agree that they are best suited to the Taiwanese version of the stray dog problem.
peace
jds
Well everyone knows I’m simply fab, so I know that couldn’t possibly be directed at me. I also know for an absolute fact that while Stray Dog might sometimes come across as a zealot, he happens to be one of the most pragmatic people I know who are involved with this kind of stuff. He promotes it because it works. Not because he’s convinced it works and CERTAINLY not just because he couldn’t possibly see a poor fluffy creature killed, but because it WORKS.
[quote=“almas john”]
Well, it’s not just between these two. Unfortunately, this thread is another example of the pet crusaders’ self-righteousness and patronizing attitude of supeiority. There are some good, informative posts but these are often marred by snide comments. It’s a pity because they do a lot of good work. But as it stands now, they are doing a pretty bad PR job here on Forumosa.[/quote]
[rant] Funny how in any discussion on this board, without fail, someone comes up with a comment like this. Tell me almas john, how should the “pet crusaders” defend their points of view? By the way, most of the snide comments here have not been coming from them.
I mean, everyone on both sides of this issue agrees that (whether it’s a solution to the current problem or not), education and prevention are absolutely necessary for a long term solution to the problem of stray dogs.
However, as soon as people see that word, “education”, they immediately jump to conclusions. “What, these people are telling me that my way is maybe not right, not the best way? What a bunch of arrogant, self-righteous pricks.”
The same comments always pop up when someone mentions a word like morality, rights, respect for life, etc etc. Especially when it’s used in a debate on the topic of animals.
These people work with animals every day. They witness first hand all sorts of horrific, brutal and barbaric abuses of other life forms on a level and frequency that is far beyond what most others will encounter in their lifetimes, and while they do try, are often powerless to stop it. I’m surprised they are able to enter into a debate with the level of calm and composure that they usually do, having to put up with comments and accustions such as this with the frequency that they are posted.
Do you call anyone who is an expert and well-experienced in their field, with whom you debate, “self righteous” or “patronising”? What’s your field of expertise, and would you like it if I debated against you in that field, and then used such comments against you for defending and backing up your views?
If you have a solution to the problem, please post it. Otherwise, maybe leave the discussing of posters out of it.
[/rant]
I can’t believe you’re arguing about puppies. 
Look at this picture and feel ashamed of yourselves:
trapjaw wrote: [quote]Tell me almas john, how should the “pet crusaders” defend their points of view? By the way, most of the snide comments here have not been coming from them. [/quote]
They need to stay away from getting personal, remove any sarcasm which can be easily misread, drop the rolling eyes emoticons, and be less patronizing. They should ignore or politely respond to snide comments. Sean and Bob are not wankers killing time on the net, they are in charge of organisations so - in the pet and animal forum anyway - i think they need to be more diplomatic.
I don’t really have a problem with the CNR method suggested on this thread, just the way its proponents post. I feel it is counterproductive.
Yes, if they are self righteous or patronising.
Almas John, if my posts have offended you, I apologise. I have a weakness for responding in kind. If you could read a little British humour into most of what I write, though, it might not seem so patronizing, but I’ll take on board what you say and try to ease up on that aspect. I appreciate that you’re trying to strengthen my arguments, so thank you.
(I’ve always used sarcy humour in situations like this, and it’s always stood me in good stead, particularly when diffusing bar-fight situations, but it doesn’t translate so well in writing, I agree; it’s a weapon I fall back on a lot, and in a case where fellow beings may be facing execution unnecessarily, I feel my back is against the wall and I go back to what I know best, and out it comes.)
[quote=“Stray Dog”]Almas John, if my posts have offended you, I apologise. I have a weakness for responding in kind. If you could read a little British humour into most of what I write, though, it might not seem so patronizing, but I’ll take on board what you say and try to ease up on that aspect. I appreciate that you’re trying to strengthen my arguments, so thank you.
(I’ve always used sarcy humour in situations like this, and it’s always stood me in good stead, particularly when diffusing bar-fight situations, but it doesn’t translate so well in writing, I agree; it’s a weapon I fall back on a lot, and in a case where fellow beings may be facing execution unnecessarily, I feel my back is against the wall and I go back to what I know best, and out it comes.)[/quote]
Patronizing git.
Stray Dog wrote: [quote]Almas John, if my posts have offended you, I apologise. I have a weakness for responding in kind. If you could read a little British humour into most of what I write, though, it might not seem so patronizing, but I’ll take on board what you say and try to ease up on that aspect. I appreciate that you’re trying to strengthen my arguments, so thank you. [/quote]
Good man. I wouldn’t want to be forced to sent you to Fred Smith’s Corrective School for Naughty Boys.
I think Sean does a fantastic job answering any questions I have about pets on this site, and honestly I believe the reason I understand any of the stray dog social problems in Taiwan, from how CNR works down to how he runs Animals Taiwan’s finances is because he takes the time to explain to me to, sometimes again and again.
Obviously we do not agree on everything, but he is a sincere gentleman and a well-informed professional, a great guy…except when he’s being a prick.
I have the greatest respect for ALL the posters on these boards who go far out of their way to help these (sometimes) wretched animals. If it weren’t for them, I wouldn’t give a squirt.
I hope that we can get back on topic please, because I need closure. If CNR does work, and the evidence suggests it does, how best to implement local CNR programs is now my main concern. Yes, I want to see strays as an anomally in Taiwan. I live here and this is my home. My son is growing up here and I am not the type of guy who shake his head and say mei yo ban fa about anything.
Obviously, donating money is not enough. So what is next? How does one plan out a CNR program?
What people who do not “seem” to support everyone’s view that CNR is the ultimate solution for Taiwan’s stray dog problem are trying to say (I believe) is that a theoretically perfect solution isn’t always practically perfect. Nothing exists in a vacuum and as has been stated many times on this board “you just don’t understand Taiwanese culture” – or rather, it is Taiwanese culture, as non-congruent to Western thought as that may sometimes be, that is driving all this. And it is Taiwanese people (as a group, not as isolated individuals) who have the decision-making power over this issue on a national level.
A large-scale CNR effort (I am not talking about solving the problem of six or seven dogs at one place; I’m talking about getting at the root of the stray dog problem island-wide) requires a huge amount of resources. While Taiwan is hardly the quintessential third-world starving country, still its resources are limited, AND it is the Taiwanese who decide how those resources will be used. The vast mass of Taiwanese, not a few people who are concerned about humane handling of animals. I think that it is safe to say that traditionally, humane handling of animals is not high on the list of Chinese virtues, and this thought persists in many places in Taiwan. You think it’s wrong; they think it’s normal. That’s culture.
It has been said repeatedly that the cause of so many strays is the fact that people dump dogs for one reason or another. Most of those “dumpers” are Taiwanese (just by numbers, obviously!). They are voters. They are the people who, whether you like it or not, have the say about how things are run on the island, and where the money goes (well, as much as any voter has any say in that kind of thing 
) and so on.
I can see the possibility of doing a donation drive for certain communities – affluent, well-off communities where households can spare the money to deal with the dog problem. There are many other places, though, where the residents simply don’t have that kind of financial capability. Suppose those communities are going to ask for money from the government for dog control? I rather think that if they do have any pull with the government at all (and that’s another question) they might be asking for other services first. The fact that they have other priorities doesn’t mean the stray dog problem is any less vexing to them; it simply means that there is a hierarchy of needs and they need to deal with the higher priorities first. Most communities would go with, say, subsidies for meals for shut-in senior citizens before dog control money. At NT$40 a pop, the NT$30,000 used to CNR seven dogs at Garden City would go a long ways toward lunchboxes with hot meals for feeding people. That’s going to be the way people think.
It’s only been in the past, oh, ten years or so (max) that special attention has been paid to the development of any place other than Taipei, Taichung and Kaohsiung (and Taipei has always been in first place). Anything outside the Big Three is probably hurting big-time in terms of of financial support from the government. Unless someone local with clout stands up and makes a lot of noise about the dog problem – and even then it would be a localized noise – nothing major is going to happen.
It’s possible that some of the animosity in this thread stems from the discussion of different solutions. Is it possible that some are saying CNR is the answer but are thinking of localized problems rather than island-wide, while those who say CNR alone will not do the trick are thinking of the big situation rather than local pockets of strays? You can impose a solution from the outside on a small pocket of a problem, but to resolve the issue islandwide will require a systemic change both in the government and, even more, in people’s thinking. And like it or not, that is not likely to happen in the near future. If you want to change people’s thinking, you need to get into the elementary schools, which means an entire generation as the space of time for the seeds to “take hold”. Always assuming, of course, that traditionally imposed respect for elders does not override what has been taught, when Grandpa dumps the latest litter by the side of the road.