What you just wrote is what we have been saying. It seems we are agreeing now, which is good to see.
Re. all that stuff about teaching English pronunciation: I think you are wrong. If people want to learn English pronunciation it is VERY important to make sure the student understands how the articulatory apparatus is used to produce the desired sounds. That is how it has always been done in the schools I worked at. I am not going to teach pronunciation by teaching my students “Hello” without knowing how to say it properly. I’m first going to work on preparing their mouths and minds to produce the sounds properly.
Re. all that stuff about teaching English pronunciation: I think you are wrong. If people want to learn English pronunciation it is VERY important to make sure the student understands how the articulatory apparatus is used to produce the desired sounds. That is how it has always been done in the schools I worked at. I am not going to teach pronunciation by teaching my students “Hello” without knowing how to say it properly. I’m first going to work on preparing their mouths and minds to produce the sounds properly.[/quote]Onto the subject of teaching English now? Man this thread is never going to end.
With all dues respect, I think there are contradictions here. I’m not sure we all agree just yet… [quote]The point that Sandman et al seem to be missing here is that those who do not advocate a pure CNR response are not saying do NOT CNR. They are saying that CNR needs to be part of an effective program that WILL provide some quicker results than those to be expected in the term of years.[/quote]How does an “effective program” account for killing a whole pack of dogs for the sake of having peace for a couple days and for shooting dogs with a bb gun?
Perhaps there are no contradictions, and people are just starting to understand this problem better.
I have some questions about CNR and packs of strays. What happens when members of the CNR pack die? Do a few new dogs move in immediately? Does another pack try to move in and take over the territory of the now smaller CNR pack?
I understand the CNR pack keeps other packs from moving in, but don’t strays tend to have fairly short lifespans because of disease or injury? Does it ever end up being a situation in which the CNR pack dies out in three or four years and the pack which replaces it then has to have CNR?
I’m assuming that the ideal is widespread CNR that would lead to a plummeting population, so there wouldn’t need to be CNR on successive packs. Has that happened anywhere CNR has been used?
It would depend on which dogs died, I would think - if pups, no; if an alpha, probably. As CNR dogs are monitored by the feeders, and any new ones will be caught and neutered during the next project (ideally every 6 months); if they were living alone or in another area, they most likely weren’t neutered.
CNR dogs are vaccinated against the most common diseases, but indeed they will die off from other diseases and injuries. In an area where CNR is the norm, you won’t have enough dogs to replace all those who die. I can’t give you a definite answer to the last question, but it is possible. Most estimates are that a stray pack might survive for between 5 and 8 years. A large completely CNRed pack can handle a couple of new unaltered members and still see an overall reduction in population over time (67 percent neutered will see a population level off; a higher percentage sees it gradually drop). Many CNR projects will remove puppies to be rehomed, but it’s not necessary to reduce the pack size, but it will certainly speed up it’s rate of reduction.
Spot on. But freshly dumped animals mean monitoring the situation and catching new ones every 6 months.
Yes, in stray/feral cat populations certainly. But it’s the newly dumped ones that need to be kept in check. That’s why, as Ironlady reiterated for us, CNR is only highly effective when employed alongside an aggressive education drive (which would include promoting sterilization of pets, so that, if dumped or lost, the animal cannot contribute to the population figure any offspring).
Here are a few reports:
[quote]
A survey of feral cat caregivers conducted by the SF/SPCA found that every caregiver who implemented a TNR program saw their colony stabilize or decrease in number. In San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, one feral cat colony has been reduced from 85 cats to two through TNR. And after caregivers at Stanford University started a successful TNR program, the campus cat population reached zero population growth almost immediately. Today, through natural attrition and the adoption of tame cats, the colony has decreased by over 50%.
In contrast, Sonoma State University administrators implemented a trap and kill program over the objections of campus cat caregivers. Less than one year after the cats were removed, more cats were again living on campus. At Georgetown University, school officials trapped feral cats and took them to the local animal control agency where the cats were killed. less than six months later, 10 new unaltered cats and 20 kittens appeared on the campus.[/quote] - http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/animalservices/feralpubsafety.html
CNR is relatively new, especially where dogs are concerned, but drastic results have already been seen and I think you can expect to see many feral populations hitting zero using this method in just a few more years. India really pioneered CNR (they call it TNR) for dogs.
In June of this year, we will be working on a major cat CNR project with the help of Ian Macfarlaine of Portugal Animal Welfare UK (PAWUK). PAWUK is one of the most prolific overseas CNR groups in the UK. If you want to be part if this exciting project, e-mail me for more information.
I am going to be taking a break from Forumosa for a while to concentrate on work, but I feel the need to put in my two cents.
Many people on here have made the point that whatever solution is implemented, it needs to be pragmatic. I agree. But this statement is usually framed in such a way to mean that CNR is not pragmatic, whereas culling them is. I am confused by this way of thinking. The links that Stray Dog has provided prove that culling simply does not work, i.e., it is not pragmatic. India went from destroying over 100 dogs per day, all to no avail, to implementing CNR on a nation-wide scale and drastically reducing the stray population, the incumbent diseases like rabies that went with it, and the need to destroy fellow creatures. Does anyone who supports the culling option have any information proving that it works? If not, then consider re-examining your position.
The other option that has been discussed is shooting the dogs with BB guns. Once again this is touted as a “pragmatic” option. However, we have two leaders of animal rescue organizations informing us that while yes, the dogs may learn to be afraid of the human with the gun, the shootings will increase their level of aggression with other people and their pets. I think this simply stands to reason. As bobepine said, we are all familiar with cases of abused animals who cower before their brutal masters but are ferocious to anyone else crossing their paths. Does anyone doubt that the dogs will only become more aggressive to other humans if you shoot them or hit them? If so, could you please explain why?
Maoman, it seems like you are quite serious about purchasing a BB gun and using it on the strays. Now if you accept Stray Dog and bobepine’s assertions as true, then you are left with the following facts:
The stray dogs will still be on the path, in the same numbers, reproducing at the same rate.
They will be more aggressive towards your neighbors and their pets, even though the strays will probably fear you.
Now, assuming you are content with the dogs continued presence and reproduction rate, and the possibility your neighbors and/or their pets may seriously be harmed by these animals you are angering, as long as you yourself are left alone, I suppose your best option would be to buy the gun and get busy.
While I doubt you would really be happy with the above consequences, I only ask that you be very very careful with the BB gun. Even a low-powered weapon that fires plastic ammunition can be exceptionally dangerous to a dog. If you miss, the pellet could easily penetrate the dog’s eyes, anus, or vagina. As bobepine said that would cause excrutiating pain, and possibly invite an infection that would literally eat the dog alive. If you hit the dog’s testicles, it could easily become lodged in the exposed skin of the scrotum or if not could still rupture the testicles. Have you ever fired a gun before? There is absolutely no guarantee you are going to hit a non-sensitive part of the dog. The dog could move, your hand might shake slightly, etc. If you are really going to do this Maoman, I can only ask that you first consult a veterinarian to learn about the possible dangers to your desired targets.
I think I speak for a lot of people on here when I say please, please, please do not do this. Do not shoot the animals. Do not have them rounded up and killed. There is a more humane solution, and one proven to work. All it would take is a little effort and patience. Please think about it.
I can guarantee it works, but I can’t guarantee for how long. It might work for months, or maybe only weeks. Anyway, the stray dogs that fill in the vacated spaces are coming from somewhere else also, right? So that’s one more vacated space, and another small victory. In my view that’s an improvement over CNR. Stray Dog can’t identify a single case where CNR has elimated the stray dog population in an area for even a day, just reduced it. We have different goals, I guess, because I don’t want to reduce the population, I want to eliminate it.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Maoman, it seems like you are quite serious about purchasing a BB gun and using it on the strays. Now if you accept Stray Dog and bobepine’s assertions as true, then you are left with the following facts:
The stray dogs will still be on the path, in the same numbers, reproducing at the same rate.
They will be more aggressive towards your neighbors and their pets, even though the strays will probably fear you.[/quote]
I don’t accept those as being true. I believe that the strays on the path will clear out if they see their environment as not being a hospitable one. I think air horns used at the same time as bb guns, along with cutting of their food source will definitely encourage them to move along. I also don’t believe they will become more aggressive after having been shot with a bb gun. I think they will become more wary and give strangers a wider berth. I won’t be getting a gun until after CNY, if at all, and I’ve only been out one morning to look for the old lady feeding them, but I didn’t see her. I’ll keep trying. I’ve also realized that if she’s a local resident, there aren’t a lot of alternative feeding areas that would keep these dogs away from the public. As it stand they’re in a fairly isolated area. As I said, the road they claim as their own goes nowhere. There are no less isolated places to feed them. I’m going to try and ask the old lady to stop feeding them altogether, but I doubt I’ll have any luck. She obviously has her reasons for feeding the dogs in the first place.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Have you ever fired a gun before? There is absolutely no guarantee you are going to hit a non-sensitive part of the dog. The dog could move, your hand might shake slightly, etc. If you are really going to do this Maoman, I can only ask that you first consult a veterinarian to learn about the possible dangers to your desired targets.
I think I speak for a lot of people on here when I say please, please, please do not do this. Do not shoot the animals. Do not have them rounded up and killed. There is a more humane solution, and one proven to work. All it would take is a little effort and patience. Please think about it.[/quote]
Yes, I’ve fired a gun, and while I’m not out to damage the dogs, please keep in mind that the only dogs I’d shoot are those that pose a direct danger to me or those in my care, including my daughter in her stroller or my exceptionally well-mannered dog. If anyone, man or beast, poses a physical threat to either one of them, and I have a bb gun in my hands, they can expect to get shot. End of story. If a stray dog did get hurt, I’d feel bad, but better him than me. If you REALLY care about the dogs’ well-being, don’t be so passive. Round them up yourselves. Go get them neutered. Get them rehomed. Quit criticizing people who are taking immediate steps to protect themselves from obvious threats to their safety.
The other option which I’m kind of surprised that no one has mentioned is just to give up and let the dogs have their turf. I think that’s just avoidance. I moved to Lotus Hill to avoid some of the more unpleasant aspects of Taiwan Life, and I’m not sure that I want to give up my longer walks with my dog.
I really do not think that is possible…[/quote]
It must be, because there are many public places in Taiwan, even in Xizhi, without packs of dogs. They environment must not be beneficial enough for them to want to live there. In my view, I have to make this place that kind of environment.
You can’t change Taiwan, you must change yourself. That’s what I’m always told. Remember, if you think something is wrong, it’s your fault. Taiwan is perfect, everyone realises that.
Makes me really appreciate strolls with Jack in the rice paddies next to our place on a daily basis.
Initially the strays around the area gave us a bit of trouble, but after few times of assertively walking on thru (sometimes with ME showing my teeth at them), they hardly give us a passing glance these days.
I am not a dog psychologist, but I honestly believe that the strays I have come across do not actually WANT to engage in a bite fest, but just want to let others know this is their area by some kind of Alpha test. Acknowledgement, Respect and just getting on with it seems to have worked for us so far. They know we will soon be on our way.
But if I started hurling rocks at them, I bet it would be different…
Just to be clear, the dogs in question are not the first strays I’ve encountered while walking Gustav. They are the first really aggressive strays I’ve encountered, though. I believe my experience has already been confirmed by a couple of others on this board who have also come into contact with these dogs. Possibly advice that works for most dogs might not apply here, because these dogs are nastier than most dogs I have met.
The city needs you! I’m surprised you think the dogcatchers can get all the dogs in your area when they can’t even get 100 percent of the one dog that was living in the middle of the freeway at mile marker 209. I have seen the dogcatchers in action, and they really do not live up to your guarantees. I often am called to come and move the ones they didn’t get.
You can’t even guarantee they will get one. I can guarantee that the smartest, least friendly dogs will escape the dogcatchers though. I can guarantee that.
I really do not think that is possible…[/quote]
It must be, because there are many public places in Taiwan, even in Xizhi, without packs of dogs. They environment must not be beneficial enough for them to want to live there. In my view, I have to make this place that kind of environment.[/quote]
I haven’t seen BB-gunners in Xizhi. I have seen plenty of packs of dogs (and CNRed some of them).
Sean, obviously you’re being facetious. I’m saying that every culled/removed/dog is guaranteed to not be there the next day. I’m to saying that it’s easy to catch them. Anyhow, they have to be caught to be CNR’d, also right? Also any new dog that moves in will likely do so in days, weeks or even months after the first population is removed. It most likely woudn’t happen the exact instance the first dog population is removed, right? I might get lucky and have a blissful three weeks of no snarling! Also keep in mind, that any dog that moves in is vacating another area. So no matter how you look at it, culling does remove dogs, if only for a short time. CNR does not, not even for a short time. You have said yourself that CNR hasn’t been in effect long enough anywhere to know if it ever eliminates the problem completely. So, I’ll take an absolute fix that may be short-lived, to a costly, long-term program that only works in half-measures, in that it leaves dogs in their original location.
I really do not think that is possible…[/quote]
It must be, because there are many public places in Taiwan, even in Xizhi, without packs of dogs. They environment must not be beneficial enough for them to want to live there. In my view, I have to make this place that kind of environment.[/quote]
I haven’t seen BB-gunners in Xizhi. I have seen plenty of packs of dogs (and CNRed some of them).[/quote]
I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that there are packs of dogs EVERYWHERE in Xizhi? All I’m saying is that they’re not everywhere. There must be a reason for that. I aim to make their current environment as inhospitable as the ones they’re not living in now. Let them move to greener pastures.
When we CNR, we use techniques and equipment that the dogcatchers don’t have at their disposal.
And I can keep the dogs at the vet for a few days before returning them if you like.
Maoman, if I really thought killing them would work, I would be silent here - really. You have a problem, and I really am offering the best solutions I know of - not the most convenient from my point of view.
Why don’t Maoman bring Stray Dog for a walk in the infested area, so they can posture together, see the real situation and discuss the best solution together, seen from their different points of view?
-Then come back, and tell us what you have agreed upon.
Another matter:
Did anyone get any reports on the situation from the town in China where they killed 500.000 dogs? Did another 500.000 move in to take their place already?
[quote=“X3M”]Another matter:
Did anyone get any reports on the situation from the town in China where they killed 500.000 dogs? Did another 500.000 move in to take their place already?[/quote]
[quote=“X3M”]Why don’t Maoman bring Stray Dog for a walk in the infested area, so they can posture together, see the real situation and discuss the best solution together, seen from their different points of view?
[/quote]I think that’s a great suggestion.
Seeing that Tigerman, Truant and others(including myself) have learned to behave appropriately around aggressive/territorial/ testy/scared dogs, maybe Maoman could find out how to really keep his family and his pet safe without further endangering his neighbors in the process.
It would also be nice to hear Sean’s own assessment of the stray dog problem in that area.
My dear sweet lovely Ironlady, yes I was in an aggressive and unpleasant mood yesterday through circumstances unrelated to F.com. I’m sorry you ended up on the receiving end, though, and offer my sincere apologies to you.
But I must take issue with your portrayal of me as advocating “a pure CNR solution.” That’s not my personal stance at all. My stance is that CNR IS a viable proposition. It’s one that’s backed by countless studies, many of which have been linked to by Sean. My stance is that ultimately, attempting to eliminate strays by simply killing them is a failing proposition, again, backed by countless studies, many of which are linked to by Sean.
My stance is that in Taiwan’s situation, CNR can work to control stray populations and Sean has proven that with the work he’s been doing here. Can it be a “pure solution?” Right now, no it cannot. (Ill-informed) public sentiment here at the moment prevents CNR from becoming a “pure solution.” My stance is that by killing aggressive strays and performing CNR on the remaining non-aggressive animals, we can provide a situation in which people can walk their children and pets without fear of attack or disease. Of course, that stance is governed by my opinion that strays will continue to exist irrespective of the methods used to control/eliminate them. Maoman doesn’t seem to agree – he’s of the opinion that its better to kill them and if you can’t kill them, shoot at them or hit them with sticks, etc.
That, to me, sounds like an unpleasant solution to the problem. Stressful for both him, his kid and his dog.
I’m lucky, I suppose. My dog is 1/3 as big again as his one, appears immune to pain, and is quite capable of giving as good as he gets. The strays I see in my area (two more yesterday btw – almost back to the pre-poisoning population in less than three weeks) are friendly to me and my dog.
A quick fix for the person, maybe, but not the dog. I see that as something of a problem in your discourse on this topic. We’re talking about a specific incidence of aggressive feral dogs interfering with one’s enjoyment of public spaces. The dogs are causing problems. In some sort of bizarre twist, however, the victim here-- in your view-- is the one who needs reprogrammng and not the dogs. Sorry, but as someone who likely loves animals as much as you, I find that attitude a little patronizing. It really leaves us little common ground for discussion.
IMHO, when I’m faced with dogs who are threatening me, it’s the dogs who need attitude adjustments, not me. [/quote]
I think what Sean is saying your attitude causes the agressive attitude of the dogs, however it’s not about blaming anyone but rather trying to find a win-win solution for both sides. And there the “attitude adjustment” of the human is the easiest, after all how much does it take to show a bit of confidence and ignore them? It’s not like you need to change yourself by undergoing some treatment.
Any other solution suggested seems to take more effort (time and money, maybe not yours though) and some are harmful or terminal to the dogs - so rather than saying the dogs should adjust their attitude - which they won’t do just like that - it’s perhaps better to take Sean’s advise into consideration.
[quote=“ironlady”]No, that’s only the best solution from the point of view of not doing anything that might discomfit, inconvenience or annoy a stray dog in any way, no matter how temporarily – just have people to totally surrender the area to them.
From Maoman’s point of view, that’s absurd. He, his daughter and his dog should never leave their apartment, then? Outside belongs to the stray dogs, so just deal with it? That is not a solution.[/quote]
It’s not. But it’s a specific place outside of the apartment, not the outside of the apartment. And as I understand it it’s only this place where a pack of dogs gives him problems. I understand his situation but if you know some area is dangerous then you should stay away from it until a suitable solution has been found. Sean has suggested one and as I see it he is the most experienced in this matter, so perhaps you (pl.) should listen to him - so far nobody has offered any proof/evidence to back up the success of the other solutions that have been proposed.
[quote=“Maoman”]Remember too, that I’m not looking to get involved in a cause. I just want to be able to walk where I want, when I want, without looking over my shoulder, “posturing”, spending a lot of money or time, and waiting 6 years, 6 months, or even 6 weeks doesn’t interest me. 6 days for the problem to go away is ok.
I guess if anyone is really concerned about these dogs they can go and try to catch them (good luck!), neuter them, and try to adopt them out. Please don’t bring them back if you can at all help it.[/quote]
I think you should be realistic. If you think that a quick fix, which is what you are after, will solve the problem in the long term go ahead and try it. No further discussion is needed then.
Don’t mean to sound agressive but if you have made up your mind and want to call the dog catcher then that’s what you gotta do.
There are different types, some are more powerful, some less, but they can all take out an eye.
