[quote=“sandman”]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. [/quote]Wow! That’s fantastic! 
:bravo:
Quite. Mess with him at your peril, as you can see.
[quote=“sandman”]Quite. Mess with him at your peril, as you can see.
[/quote]
He makes Jojo look tiny!!!
we’ve had HHs, Weiyas, Family HHs, Family picnics, camps n shit.
Isn’t it about time we had a f.com dog day?
[quote=“Rascal”]
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]I agree, and well said.
Here’s from the PETA website. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
PETA advocates for animals to be treated ethically at every level of our interaction with them. From caring for a pet, down to killing animals for food. I hope that we can stick to the topic at hand, and see how/ if some of the insights below apply to this stray problem.
I think it’s clear that there are two closely related focuses in this discussion. One is to establish the most pragmatic approach to solve this problem. The other is to find ways to do so ethically in a way that will look after the interests of both the people and the animals involved.
I believe that the safety of the people come first, but I also believe that animals have rights. It’s imminent to me that compromises will have to be made on both sides(animals and humans) in order to solve this problem ethically, and pragmatically.
“Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t always respect our rights, so why should we apply our ideas of morality to them?”
An animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or as that of a person with a severe developmental disability. Animals are not always able to choose to change their behaviors, but adult human beings have the intelligence and ability to choose between behaviors that hurt others and behaviors that do not hurt others. When given the choice, it makes sense to choose compassion.
“What rights should animals have?”
Animals should have the right to equal consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We are, therefore, obliged to take that interest into consideration and to respect the dog’s right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her. However, animals don’t always have the same rights as humans because their interests are not always the same as ours, and some rights would be irrelevant to animals. For instance, a dog doesn’t have an interest in voting and, therefore, doesn’t have the right to vote because that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child.
“Where do you draw the line?”
The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time to stop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of the problems and responsibilities that an expanded ethic brings, he said, “A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help … He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy … nor how far it is capable of feeling.” We can’t stop all suffering, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stop any. In today’s world of virtually unlimited choices, there are plenty of kind, gentle ways for us to feed, clothe, entertain, and educate ourselves that do not involve killing animals.
“It’s fine for you to believe in animal rights, but why do you try to tell other people what to do?”
Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, but freedom of thought is not the same thing as freedom of action. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others. You may believe that animals should be killed, that black people should be enslaved, or that women should be beaten, but you don’t always have the right to put your beliefs into practice. The very nature of reform movements is to tell others what to do—don’t use humans as slaves, don’t sexually harass women, etc.—and all movements initially encounter opposition from people who want to continue to take part in the criticized behavior.
That’s what PETA believes. That’s great.
Others have other views, which are more or less congruent with the views stated, depending on the individual. So saying “how can we apply PETA’s views” is ignoring the fact that not everyone totally espouses PETA’s ideas.
Where the argument goes astray (ha! ha! good pun, what? 
) is in trying to compare certain behaviors towards animals with, say, enslaving humans or beating women. PETA assumes for the purposes of its own argument that animals have rights essentially equal to those of humans. That is an assumption, not necessarily a universal Truth nor an underpinning of the legal system in effect in any given place, and it’s circular reasoning. “We believe animals have the same rights as people, therefore it’s just as wrong to do X to an animal as it is to enslave a person.” If your first premise is not accepted (and it is not an absolute Law of the Universe, and is not accepted by some in this argument), the second one does not follow. Saying that animals do not have the same rights as people is not tantamount to saying animals should be mistreated, abused or ignored; it simply means that they take a slightly lower position in the hierarchy of things when questions of interest or injury are considered.
“Objects accelerate toward the core of the Earth at 9.81m/s2” is a law. “Animals have the same rights as people” is a belief. And the final form of any “movement” is sculpted by the diversity of opinion that goes into it. You’ll find very few successful movements that are totally unitary in their ideology.
Your argument is great, Ironlady - very well put together. Very intellectual.
Except, you write as though people aren’t animals. 
[quote=“ironlady”]That’s what PETA believes. That’s great.
Others have other views, which are more or less congruent with the views stated, depending on the individual. So saying “how can we apply PETA’s views” is ignoring the fact that not everyone totally espouses PETA’s ideas.[/quote]Where did I ask “how can we apply” PETA’s views? I asked how they can apply, yes, but only if you think they do apply to this stray dog problem.[quote=“I”]I hope that we can stick to the topic at hand, and see how/ if some of the insights below apply to this stray problem. [/quote]I think it’s a fair distinction to make. Surely, it’s a far cry from ignoring others POV. In fact, it’s inquiring of what others think about it. On that note, thanks for the reply.
Also, note that PETA is the biggest movement in the world with 1.6 million members and supporters. If that’s not successful, I don’t know what is. 
sandman wrote:
Maoman wrote:
Well there it is. Three weeks of a dog free path is enough to justify culling from your perspective, even though you recognize more will take their place. From your “others will have to leave another place to move in to path” argument, I can only assume you plan to have the new batch culled as well, to continue the “eradication” process. Well massive culling campaigns did not work in India, but perhaps they will work for you.
Rascal is right Maoman. It sounds like you have already made up your mind here and should just call the dog catcher.
double post. I clicked quote instead of edit, and realized that only after I submitted the edit/quote. Please kill this post.
Maoman, let remind you that you could simply walk your dog and your child ELSEWHERE. Taiwan is pretty big and pretty green. One could argue that from the dog’s perspective YOU are the pain in the ass.
And let’s not get into the whole ‘Christian’ aspect of this.
I suggest you find a nice park where there are no stray dogs, and you can have a lovely time. Then no dogs need to die, just so you can have a 30 min stroll.
You disagree with Maoman? Ha ha. I disagree with Maoman all the time. Opinions are for the foolhardy. :snooty:
You disagree with Maoman? Ha ha. I disagree with Maoman all the time. Opinions are for the foolhardy. :snooty:[/quote]
Aah, touche!
But seriously, couldn’t you just walk elsewhere? There’s a lot of talk 'bout killing, just for the sake of some strolling.
You disagree with Maoman? Ha ha. I disagree with Maoman all the time. Opinions are for the foolhardy. :snooty:[/quote]As long as it’s just an opinion, It’s not that bad.[quote]
Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, but freedom of thought is not the same thing as freedom of action. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others.[/quote]
This pretty much echoes the point I was trying to make. The dogs don’t get a vote. If people decide to exterminate them, then they will be gone. But if CNR programs only offer kinder gentler strays, with diminishing volume over time, it may be hard to see CNR as a viable option.
I am not trying to suggest that “You guys are thinking the wrong way” because I don’t think you are. A CNR program could work in Green Island. It’s an enclosed area. And they have a stray dog program. Not a big one, and it could be controlled in the manner Sean has described here.
Kending however, has a bigger and more serious problem. Those strays are the barky snarly (at each other) territorial rip the trash to bits and chase cars type o’ strays. And half of them have collars, not doubt “lost” pets.
You cannot control the new influx of animals into areas, unless those areas are completely sealed off, or if every single stray is moved, scared off, or killed. I mean what’s the point of just neutering new dogs that come into the area? You have a larger population of dogs that are being left alone to die “humanely” or get hit by cars and whatnot.
I will have to aggree with Sandman’s assessment on the feet stampy “I want them gone!” I do want them gone. But I agree with Ironlady too, I do not see that any CNR program will gain ground here, in Taiwan, without an up front immediate release.
I just had a great drive through both coastal areas. Where were the most dogs? On the mountain roads. Usually single dogs or a pair. Not more. Why CNR these dogs? Remove them, as in capture them and do the humane thing of keeping them in the pound (ugh), and put big goddamned trash bins that even the laziest of Taiwanese driver can’t miss. Spend a bit of dough on the rest area and have some mountain guy take pictures of people who litter and feed the dogs and fine the hell out of them.
You cannot do this thing and make everyone happy.
[quote]
I think it’s clear that there are two closely related focuses in this discussion. One is to establish the most pragmatic approach to solve this problem. The other is to find ways to do so ethically in a way that will look after the interests of both the people and the animals involved.
I believe that the safety of the people come first, but I also believe that animals have rights. It’s imminent to me that compromises will have to be made on both sides(animals and humans) in order to solve this problem ethically, and pragmatically. [/quote]
I’m with you on the first part, but I don’t believe animals have rights. However, that doesn’t make me deaf the their pain and suffering.
Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be to convince the public how effective CNR is if you suggest killing a bunch of dogs first? Plus, the logic and proof is there that this would make matters worse. The public has been educated in other countries as to the effectiveness, and I se no problem with doing the same here.
You don’t throw water on oil fires no matter how good it looks to Joe public.
[quote=“Stray Dog”]Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be to convince the public how effective CNR is if you suggest killing a bunch of dogs first? Plus, the logic and proof is there that this would make matters worse. The public has been educated in other countries as to the effectiveness, and I se no problem with doing the same here.
You don’t throw water on oil fires no matter how good it looks to Joe public. [/quote]
Taiwan is not a COUNTRY.
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. 
I DO however see a Cull/CNR problem in that people will tend to see the cull as the easy way out.
What do you think about the enclosed areas, like Green/Orchid Island? Wouldn’t they be perfect for a CNR program, followed by a local dogcatcher that catches pets or “new” strays to eliminate, and not “eliminate” the SD problem there?
[quote=“jdsmith”][quote]
I think it’s clear that there are two closely related focuses in this discussion. One is to establish the most pragmatic approach to solve this problem. The other is to find ways to do so ethically in a way that will look after the interests of both the people and the animals involved.
I believe that the safety of the people come first, but I also believe that animals have rights. It’s imminent to me that compromises will have to be made on both sides(animals and humans) in order to solve this problem ethically, and pragmatically. [/quote]
I’m with you on the first part, but I don’t believe animals have rights. However, that doesn’t make me deaf the their pain and suffering.[/quote]Rights or no rights, killing other animals would be ethical if it was necessary, and if there were no other options. However, more humane options have been documented and proven to be more effective at controlling the stray dog population.
Unless you can back up your own position as has been asked by many now, this conversation will just go around in circle. On one hand of the discussion, links, documentation, and ample evidences are presented to support CNR both on an ethical POV, and on a pragmatic POV. On the other hand of the discussion, all I read is “I don’t think so.” Or “I want them gone” or “CNR will not work here.” Problem is, those are all unsupported opinions. And again, asking for an immediate solution to a long lasting problem is not a viable option.
[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.
[/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.
Look how easy it was to convince the whole island to bag their garbage, sort it, and take it out daily. People said that couldn’t be done either. Now Taiwan recycles at a higher rate than almost any country in the world.
Or the ban on plastic bags. I remember suggesting this to adult students 10 years ago using Sweden (where I had travelled) as an example. In that country you had to pay for every plastic bag. But all the students said it couldn’t be done here as people would complain too much.
Ahem. It happened.
People don’t give the Taiwanese enough credit. They’re not poor, or stupid, or evil, but ignorant and can learn as they have shown time and time again.
That said, I truly believe they will NEVER learn to stop burning!
I had a conversation with an Australian 12 years ago in Taipei about a stray mangey dog that was in his neighborhood. He said, “If I were back home, I’d shoot it.”
I have brought this topic up in recent weeks and more than a few people have said essentially the same thing. What is “ethical” to you is not necessarily ethical to me, or anyone else. This is the big sticking point, and I am certainly not trying to get you to change your mind here, but to see the other side of the coin. To some, pigeons are pests. To others they are pets. The same with dogs. Now I’m not about to go into someone’s coop and start a fire, but it someone were to poison the pigeons outside of CKS memorial because they’re filthy germ ridden yucky-yucks, I wouldn’t lose much sleep. I do not believe this makes me an unethical man. I watched the pig cull in Taiwan on TV a few years back. They electrocuted them to death. I thought, “This is horrible. Why not just shoot them in the head?” 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.
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. If the animals are sacrificed so that the people get what they want, well it wouldn’t be the first time in history. There were a HELL of a lot of buffalo 150 years ago in America. An ethical argument will get bogged down in “Do We have the right to step on and over other livings being to ‘elevate’ ourselves?” Killing too many fish in the sea? Bad idea and stupid as we depend on the sea and sea life for food, and sea plants for oxygen. We do not depend on dogs, not as pets, and not as food, not even for work (with the notable exception of ranch/herding/sled dogs which rock). People may want to SAY that we do, but IMVHO, we do not. This may seem harsh, but this is the other side of the coin. I’m not as extreme personally as the position that I have presented, and I am a responsible pet owner, yet I fall closer to this harsher side then to the “Animal Rights” side.
Having the ethical side of this discussion is much harder than actually fixing the SD problem anyway. How can you PROVE that your ethical standards are the proper ones and should be followed? It is not an easy road to take. There, AFAIK, is no innate capacity in humans to have compassion for animals. It is taught. Animals, as pets, or farm animals are genrally introduced to children, and we get used to them, and we get used to believing that they are “just like people.” If someone says, “But seals cry out when people beat them to death” someone might just say, “Well, it fucking hurts. I’d cry too if someone were wacking me on the head to death with a polearm.”
Again, for clarity, when it comes to animal having certain rights that need to be protected, I am NOT saying you are wrong to believe that, but I don’t, and I’m not alone on this.
Getting back to the real issue, I am curious if there is not a more realistic approach than you seem to be offering in the CNR. You guys run small animal rescue organizations, and I have a lot of respect for what you are are doing; however, saving animals and doing a few CNR will not solve this problem. I hear there has been a “successful” CNR program at a beach in Northen Taiwan. That’s nice, but who lives at the beach? And I cannot remember that last time I saw a cat at ANY beach, not just in Taiwan. In the big picture, does it matter?
[quote]
Unless you can back up your own position as has been asked by many now, this conversation will just go around in circle. On one hand of the discussion, links, documentation, and ample evidences are presented to support CNR both on an ethical POV, and on a pragmatic POV. On the other hand of the discussion, all I read is “I don’t think so.” Or “I want them gone” or “CNR will not work here.” Problem is, those are all unsupported opinions.[/quote]
I will do some poking around, and will get back to you. But mostly here, I am wondering if there is more viable answer for Taiwan’s SD problem.
Let me ask you something, where have I asked for an “immediate” solution? I asked would it be useful to cull some of the dogs to get the people in the area behind a CNR program. I speculated that it would.
It’s easier to keep a clean house clean than to clean a dirty house.