Want to add a poll to this thread and put the issue to the popular vote?
It’s a little more complex than that, don’t you think?
[quote=“Stray Dog”]It’s a little more complex than that, don’t you think?[/quote]Chris here seems to be capable only of viewing this issue in monochrome, so I thought I’d frame the question in those terms.
Bobepine, perhaps the problem is people like yourself who think animals are equal to humans.
I don’t see how you’re going to win anyone over to your way of thinking in this regard. Humans come first, that’s just the plain reality of the situation. I don’t imagine that’s about to change anytime soon either.
I can’t speak for problems with stray dogs in parks in Taipei city, but up on Wu-Zhr shan (north of the city) there are packs of strays in a few areas that are well out of control. I’ve been chased and followed on walking trails there more than once and would prefer if people didn’t dump food on the road for them to eat. Like many have said on this thread already, if there is no food, the dogs will move on.
Bobepine, perhaps the problem is people like yourself who think animals are equal to humans.
I don’t see how you’re going to win anyone over to your way of thinking in this regard. Humans come first, that’s just the plain reality of the situation. I don’t imagine that’s about to change anytime soon either.[/quote]Well, maybe you are right, my opinion on this topic is not about to clear the streets of dogs and dogs feces. That’s for sure. However, as mentioned earlier, if feeding the dogs is backed up with a CNR program, I think it could work. We CNR many animals, so it’s not like I don’t put forth a concrete effort to make a difference, both for the animals and for the community. I always carry a can of dog food in my scooter in case I see a dog hurting for a feed, too. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. Just try giving me hell if you catch me doing it. 
I never feed the same dogs, though, it’s a random thing for me; I have enough dogs under my care as it is…
Your logic that people come first sounds good to me. Makes sense. And yes, that’s not about to change. Fair enough. Two things, though. Firstly, animals are equal to humans in terms of feeling pain or feeling hungry. In terms of needing basic things like food and water to not feel pain and hunger. Secondly, and like I said, it only makes sense that people come first, but it’s not like we are trying to choose either people or animals will starve here… My question is, how much comfort do we allow ourselves if it means that animals will suffer as a direct result? It would be nice to have the streets free of dogs, and dogs feces, but that’s not the reality, and while we want clean streets, how much are we willing to impose on the animals to have that? How much do we put up with, for the little guys not to suffer. That is a far cry from putting the animals first in line, Mer.
I’m not asking for animals to be treated like people, I’m merely asking that we do not prosecute those who help them so that we can be more comfortable in our communities. That’s not putting the animals first at all, it’s simply trying to have a compassionate outlook on the suffering of animals vs the inconvenience they pose to people.
[quote=“bobepine”]I’m merely asking that we do not prosecute those who help them so that we can be more comfortable in our communities.[/quote]We already established that feeding unfixed strays causes more strays. I’m saying that feeding them exacerbates the problem as a whole. While it may make that one stray feel better for a short while, there is no long term positive effect either on that animal or on society as a whole. Unless of course you think that your own self-satisfaction is a benefit to society.
Let me pose another question. Do you agree that culling wild animals is preferable to letting them starve?
I’ve read through the OP and a few of the responses. My reaction is that this initiative to fine those who’d feed strays is just another symptom of the attitudes and treatment of domestic animals that has labelled Taiwan the worst place on earth to be a canine.
I think targetting those feeding strays, or complaining about unsightly fecal matter, is a waste of resources and a response that completely misses the point. People need to be educated and compelled to be responsible in their pet ownership. Licensing should be mandatory, so should spaying and neutering and those found to have abandoned their pets should face stiff penalties. As it stands right now, we have a system that enables pet purchasing on impulse with the knowledge that easy, risk-free disposal is possible when these toys grow up to be living things that require maintenance… and now we’ll fine anyone who tries to offer comfort to starving dogs. Great.
Well,hold on here. In the OP’s first post he gave us an email which reads:[quote]
The father is limped from a car accident from before. He looks old, but still quite strong. I’m not sure of his actual age. He is friendly to most people, but he guards this place.
The mother is tail-less, which we believe is due to a tail-cutting act according a trend before that made the people then to believe that tail-less dogs look good. She is tensed and do not trust human beings, not even us who feed her and her family often. She never eats unless she is sure we are in a safe distance. [/quote]
There is no mention that these dogs are “starving.”
And there is little evidence that any of the many strays I see on a regular basis are starving either. Is this a red herring?
As for the “demonic” comment Bobepine, I should have written “demonize.”
And this:[quote]
I’m not asking for animals to be treated like people, I’m merely asking that we do not prosecute those who help them so that we can be more comfortable in our communities. That’s not putting the animals first at all, it’s simply trying to have a compassionate outlook on the suffering of animals vs the inconvenience they pose to people.[/quote]
Why should you expect people to put animals first? I want a clean park for my kid and other kids to play without stepping, falling, sliding, or sitting in dogshit. And I want a park that is stray dog free. I’ll put my kid first thanks.
The police fine people for dumping food garbage in the street. Why, because it’s unsanitary and attracts stray dogs. Feeding stray dogs is just going to make them feel that the area in which they are being fed is theirs. The police are trying to solve this problem. Again, compared to ten years ago, the stray problem now is minimal. Not a perfect program, but it seems to be working…maybe just not in a way that pleases everyone.
I still prefer the CNR program and no feeding. Either they can find their own food, be rescued or move on.
JD, if you don’t believe that Taiwan’s strays are starving, parasite and disease ridden, I really can’t do much to convince you otherwise. The evidence is out there. I guess I look at rake thin, hairless strays with open sores and draw different conclusions based on that evidence than you do.
My main point was the initiative to punish people who feed strays is misdirected and stupid… But I suppose we ought to just continue to enable irresponsible pet ownership and simply come by once in a while to mass exterminate all the cast aside pets rather than address the problem in any meaningful way. Of course, if anyone should happen to throw these abandoned pets a few scraps before the catchers get them, well, we should throw the book at them. Seems like a really intelligent way to deal with the problem to me.
Well, I certainly wouldn’t deny that SOME of them are starving, and I would totally agree that they are full of parasites and disease ridden. I would also imagine that the ones that live in public parks are less so (starving anyway) because people feed them, yet just as filthy and diseased.
[quote]
The evidence is out there. I guess I look at rake thin, hairless strays with open sores and draw different conclusions based on that evidence than you do.[/quote]
This could also be that you live further out in the boonies than I do. The dogs in Yingge are not starving from what I see day to day. Nonetheless, I am for not feeding them in either place.
I don’t think it’s very nice, but I do see it as A solution to a specific problem: The feeding of strays IN PARKS and RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
Like the “starving” argument, no one here is suggesting such a thing. Culling them is not an option that is even on the table is it?
I doubt any books would be thrown. I also doubt that the police would be able to adequately explain why people shouldn’t feed the dogs.
I don’t think the sarcasm helps this discussion much.
I don’t know how one can fight for animal rights on the one hand and want to sustain a stray dog population on the other. In upstate NY you’d be hard pressed to find ONE stray dog in a town or larger city. The dogcatcher would snap one up asap, or an animal protection group, like the one I used to volunteer for (jdsubliminal…not a demon )
EVEN if you CNR dogs back into a park and they are fed, they will die off. Then they will be replaced by other dogs, right? How does that “solve” the problem for the people in that area? or are the people in the area just not important to the equation?
Now if the dogs are CNR and then NOT fed, they will leave. Some will find a food source in another area. Some will not, and yes, they will die. They will starve. Or they will be captured, adopted or put down. In this way, the area will, over time, be cleared of strays, right?
Isn’t this what we’re after? No strays? Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m sure you will.
Why should you expect people to put animals first?[/quote]My good Sir, I was responding to Mer’s post who said that I consider animals to be equal to people, and telling him that what I would like to see doesn’t represent putting the animals first. Read my post again.
[quote=“I”]Your logic that people come first sounds good to me. Makes sense. And yes, that’s not about to change. Fair enough. [/quote]Misquote? Or misread?
The sentence you highlighted above is written by me, and it’s referring to my own comments, and to what I would like to see,(see the parts I highlighted in blue above) but you bold it and ask me why I would expect animals to put first as if I was directing that comments at what someone else had written or something like that. Yeah… That’s a misquote for sure… I’m saying that what I would like to see does not represent putting the animals first, and you quote me to ask me why I would want the animals to be put first?
Here, read this one more time:
[quote=“bobepine”][quote=“jd”]Why should you expect people to put animals first?[/quote]My good Sir, I was responding to Mer’s post who said that I consider animals to be equal to people, and telling him that what I would like to see doesn’t represent putting the animals first. Read my post again.
No, I didn’t misread it what you wrote. It seems to me that everything you put forth is about putting animals first. I was surprised at what you wrote as it seems a turnaround in your position.
sorry for the confusion
[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“bobepine”][quote=“jd”]Why should you expect people to put animals first?[/quote]My good Sir, I was responding to Mer’s post who said that I consider animals to be equal to people, and telling him that what I would like to see doesn’t represent putting the animals first. Read my post again.
No, I didn’t misread it what you wrote. It seems to me that everything you put forth is about putting animals first. I was surprised at what you wrote as it seems a turnaround in your position.
sorry for the confusion[/quote] Then you misquoted me. Apology accepted. But…
There is no turnaround in my position. Quote me(not misquote)on anything I wrote in this thread and explain how exactly do I advocate putting the animals first in line. Put your money where your mouth is, stop misquoting me, and I’ll be happy to explain myself. I’m baffled, I don’t think I asked anyone to starve in order for animals not to starve.
[quote=“redwagon”][quote=“bobepine”]I’m merely asking that we do not prosecute those who help them so that we can be more comfortable in our communities.[/quote]We already established that feeding unfixed strays causes more strays.[/quote]You are right, and I agree with you. I agreed to that earlier in this thread, too. I say let’s just keep feeding them, and if they produce more litters, and the problem gets bigger, then let’s feed more of them. 
Seriously, going after the dog feeders is not a solution to the stray problem. Period.
1- Yes it(feeding strays) exacerbate the problem, but it’s humane, compassionate, and it’s the right thing to do for each of these animals individually. They are hungry, and they will get sick if they can’t find food. That’s the bottom line in my book. If it makes things worse, then let’s find ways to help this problem without resolving to issuing fines to people who help strays; without making the animals pay for our own mistakes in the first place.(they already pay a hefty price called misery) It’s incongruous to do so, especially since more and more of the dog feeders also perform CNR and re-homing.
2-This topic is about issuing fines to those who feed the dogs or not. It’s not “to feed or not to feed the dogs.” People will keep feeding them. Should they be issued fines or not? I agree that feeding them exacerbate the problem if they do not desexe the animals at the very least, but the real question is are they the ones responsible for the stray overpopulation in Taiwan regardless? Or are they just doing their best to lessen the suffering of these animals.
3-The pillar in your arguments is that feeding the dogs exacerbate the problem. But it’s not the root of the problem, and it’s a humane thing to do, while the real reason why so many strays pollute your neighborhood is because too many people lack compassion for animals and abandon them left, right, and center. To sum it up, while more compassion is required at the very root of this problem, you are going after the people who offer compassion to compensate for those who have no compassion at all. It doesn’t make sense to approach this problem by issuing fines or giving hell to those who feed strays. It only supports the throw away culture. It’s supporting a less than compassionate approach to dealing with animals in Taiwan, and as Stimpy said very well, it only contributes to shine a very negative light on Taiwan in terns of animal welfare.
4-Earlier, you mentioned that you did not abandon any animals, and you suggested that those who do would not complain about the nuisance caused by abandoned animals aka strays. Truth be told, those who have enough love and compassion for our four legged friends to make a point of feeding dogs on a regular basis would not abandon animals either. They are an example to follow in that regard, IMO, and they’ll be the first ones to advocate not abandoning animals. Hence issuing fines to them is absurd, and incongruous. Read, a really screwed up way to go about making your neighborhood a cleaner, safer place to live. Fine the people who advocate against the very cause of this probblem? It doesn’t make any sense.
5-On a more personal note, I work with suffering animals day in day out. On average, a minimum of 30 hours of my time is donated to help strays weekly. Much more than that right now as we are in the middle of setting up a foster center, and I’ve been working 15 hours per day every weekend for the last three weeks painting, fixing, moving, etc. I see the suffering these animals go through hands on so to speak, and I refuse to accept having them pay the price for our own wrong doing. The problem has to be addressed at the roots, and not by targeting and blaming those who at least do something about the suffering animals endure on our streets. If that is not acceptable to you, then I suggest that we politely agree to disagree on this one.
[quote=“redwagon”]Unless of course you think that your own self-satisfaction is a benefit to society.[/quote]No comments here…
[quote=“redwagon”]Let me pose another question. Do you agree that culling wild animals is preferable to letting them starve?[/quote]Rephrase your question with the words “abandoned domesticated animals” as opposed to “wild animals” and I will answer it for you. Otherwise, your question is irrelevant, or at the least, inappropriate for this topic.
[quote=“bobepine”]
1- Yes it(feeding strays) exacerbate the problem, but it’s humane, compassionate, and it’s the right thing to do for each of these animals individually. They are hungry, and they will get sick if they can’t find food. That’s the bottom line in my book. If it makes things worse, then let’s find ways to help this problem without resolving to issuing fines to people who help strays; without making the animals pay for our own mistakes in the first place.(they already pay a hefty price called misery) It’s incongruous to do so, especially since more and more of the dog feeders also perform CNR and re-homing.
[/quote]This is the way that policy works. You try it out and if it doesn’t work you try something else. Who are you to ignore the law and do it your own way?
[quote=“bobepine”]
2-This topic is about issuing fines to those who feed the dogs or not. It’s not “to feed or not to feed the dogs.” People will keep feeding them. Should they be issued fines or not? I agree that feeding them exacerbate the problem if they do not desexe the animals at the very least, but the real question is are they the ones responsible for the stray overpopulation in Taiwan regardless? Or are they just doing their best to lessen the suffering of these animals.
[/quote]Sorry, but it is about whether people should feed the dogs or not. This is what the fines are aiming to do, to dissuade people from feeding the dogs and thus increasing the population again. This topic isn’t about compassion for individual dogs, though you don’t seem to be able to get beyond that.
[quote=“bobepine”]
3-The pillar in your arguments is that feeding the dogs exacerbate the problem. But it’s not the root of the problem, and it’s a humane thing to do, while the real reason why so many strays pollute your neighborhood is because too many people lack compassion for animals and abandon them left, right, and center.
[/quote]Yes, that is the pillar of my arguments. Strays are a problem. Feeding them makes it worse. Is the thread about why there are so many strays? No. It isn’t.
[quote=“bobepine”]
4-Earlier, you mentioned that you did not abandon any animals, and you suggested that those who do would not complain about the nuisance caused by abandoned animals aka strays. Truth be told, those who have enough love and compassion for our four legged friends to make a point of feeding dogs on a regular basis would not abandon animals either. They are an example to follow in that regard, IMO, and they’ll be the first ones to advocate not abandoning animals. Hence issuing fines to them is absurd, and incongruous. Read, a really screwed up way to go about making your neighborhood a cleaner, safer place to live. Fine the people who advocate against the very cause of this probblem? It doesn’t make any sense.
[/quote]If they can’t see the logic that feeding the dogs is only increasing suffering by stray dogs as a whole, then the government should take whatever steps necessary to dissuade them.
Your last point is also irrelevant.
No, it’s a relevant question so please answer the question as it stands. Do you think a former pet suffers more from hunger than a wild animal similarly deprived of food? I don’t see the distinction. On the one hand you want to forward the argument that an abandoned pet deserves as much compassion as a human, on the other hand you’re going to tell me a wild animal deserves less compassion than a domesticated dog.
While I admire your compassion for animals I do think it hinders your abilities of logical thought.
[quote]Do you think a former pet suffers more from hunger than a wild animal similarly deprived of food? I don’t see the distinction. On the one hand you want to forward the argument that an abandoned pet deserves as much compassion as a human, on the other hand you’re going to tell me a wild animal deserves less compassion than a domesticated dog. [/quote]In my opinion, it’s a matter of responsibility, not compassion when the subject of culling is brought up. Mind me, being the only animals able to think logically, maybe we have a responsibility over all other species. This said, maybe your question is relevant after all. Oversight on my part.
I think that culling animals to avoid death via starvation may be a humane option, but only if there is no other options available. Not the case here. Besides, culling strays is already happening in many countries, and it’s not working. I know where you are going with this, BTW. But let’s hear it. I have a lot of respect for you, so I’m keen to hear your thoughts…
[quote=“bobepine”][quote]Do you think a former pet suffers more from hunger than a wild animal similarly deprived of food? I don’t see the distinction. On the one hand you want to forward the argument that an abandoned pet deserves as much compassion as a human, on the other hand you’re going to tell me a wild animal deserves less compassion than a domesticated dog. [/quote]In my opinion, it’s a matter of responsibility, not compassion when the subject of culling is brought up. Mind me, being the only animals able to think logically, maybe we have a responsibility over all other species. This said, maybe your question is relevant after all. Oversight on my part.
[/quote]Dear oh dear. When pets are faced with starvation it’s a matter of compassion, but when culling is suggested, it’s a matter of responsibility. What a tangled mess of half-thought-through stuff that is. Don’t see the logic there. Sorry.
[quote=“bobepine”]
I think that culling animals to avoid death via starvation may be a humane option, but only if there is no other options available. Not the case here. Besides, culling strays is already happening in many countries, and it’s not working. I know where you are going with this, BTW. But let’s hear it. I have a lot of respect for you, so I’m keen to hear your thoughts…[/quote]
Well, I wasn’t going directly to the idea of culling strays. More strawmen on your part there. No, I was working toward the idea of death as part of life, including death by starvation and disease. Happens all the time, all around you, everyday.
When an environment, any environment, is unable to support the animal population that it contains, different things can happen. Maybe the animals can migrate somewhere else. Maybe some people will show up to feed them for a while. Maybe some or even all of the animals will die. Why do governments spend money to hire people to go out and cull those animals? It’s because temporary increase in the food supply will only prolong the suffering of those animals and it’s only possible to provide short-term relief. It’s because some imbalance caused the overpopulation and now that nature has fixed the balance, the animals will starve to death. It’s considered humane to cull them and save them from a slow death. Agree with me so far?
In my opinion, a rational debate on the stray pet problem cannot include the history of the problem as anything other than a preface. How the situation came about isn’t important to the decision making process which will lead to a decision on how to resolve it. Only the Chinese need to apportion blame before a solution can be discussed. How a wild population got to be so out of balance with it’s food chain has no influence on the decision to go out and cull those animals. It doesn’t matter how it came to be. The problem is what it is, and nothing else.
We agree that strays breed to the limit of the food supply, and most likely beyond it as the feedback loop is slow. We agree that strays should be captured, neutered and released in order to avoid increasing the population further. I agree with you that the people who are feeding the strays are in the best position to help with this program. Obviously the current policy of capturing the animals and putting through the pounds results in most of them being destroyed, and this relieves pressure on the food supply to the point where the environment will support more animals, thus perpetuating the cycle. I am repeating points that have already been made here just so you realize I am not ignorant of them, or in disagreement.
What I would like to see to relieve the immediate problem for society and the strays:
- Forbid unfixed strays to be fed. As discussed, it only exacerbates the problem. Fine people if that’s what it takes.
- Modify the existing system of capture, hold and destroy into a Capture, Neuter, Hold and Release program. Animals should be snipped, held in a shelter for a week for adoption, and released if noone takes them. Of course animals with health problems that could endanger other animals or humans should be put down immediately.
2a. The pounds should have downtown reception centers for accepting animals for CNHR. I know a lot of people mean to take animals to the pound but cannot or don’t want to travel all the way out to the usual locations. Carrot and stick. - Run a media campaign with the following objectives:
3a. Educate the masses on just what a commitment owning a pet is. How quickly ‘hao ke ai oh’ turns into ‘what a pain in the ass this mutt is’.
3b. Educate them some more on what a horrible life and death an abandoned pet has.
3c. Educate on the CNHR concept and on how feeding yet-unfixed strays doesn’t help in the long term.
3d. Showcase the fine animals that are available for adoption at government and private sector shelters alike, and how stupid it would be to spend money buying one at a pet store. The public has no idea that fine, healthy animals are available for free.
3e. Offer a cash award to those who bring in animals for neutering. Cash would result in pet kidnapping, so that would encourage owners to have their pets chipped and wear collars. Give them NT$100 per unchipped animal and NT$500 for each one with a chip and no collar. - Have the CNHR animals chipped and the ones who are released after their week in the showroom is up fitted with a collar of conspicuous color so that private sector helpers and the dog catcher teams know which animals to feed and leave alone, and which ones to capture.
4a. Educate the public that the collared animals have had health checks, have been neutered, and are safe for immediate adoption. They should simply take them to be registered as their pets so that if the bounty hunters take them they can get them back. Easily done when they’re already chipped. - Actually enforce the microchipping program the government announced years ago which was supposed to stop people buying and dumping pets by punishing owners whose pets were found abandonded. Stiff fine if your pet enters the reception center before you report it missing. Fines pay the bounties paid and contribute to the CNHR program.
- Implement stiff fines for owners who let their dog’s crap lie around in public. Give rewards to those who turn them in. Two-time offenders get their noses rubbed in poop. Half-joking.
Personally I think only proposals 1 and 2 have a snowball’s chance in hell, but it would be a start. If the whole program is run, and run well, it will result in the younger, healthier animals surviving and the older, less healthy ones starving to death. Just as it does in the wild. It should end up with some of the animals being adopted either from the pounds or directly off the street. If anyone wants to feed the CNHR animals on the street they can. Charity is all about personal choice after all.
If there’s something that doesn’t work, or I haven’t thought through properly in the system, please point it out. I’m already way past arguments for compassion over logic.
I have been reading your posts for a long time and have personally been in several very long and drawn out discussions with you about strays, and in each and every case you have taken a position that promotes the welfare of the dogs above the concerns of any people in the equation. You try to get around around this by placing animals on equal footing with human beings and then resort to red herrings to distract anyone who disagrees with you. "How can you measure a starving dog against the comfort of a human community?"seems to be the cry in this thread. As a person setting up an animal rescue/welfare center you might rethink this policy to antagonizing the humans who will ultimately support your group. I do not need to accept stray dogs in my neighborhood.
This thread is only the latest example. If you do not see that you place your “compassion for the dogs” position above and beyond the concerns of the people who live work and play in areas infested with stray dogs, than there is not a whole lot I can say except please reread your own posts.
Or, I could supply one or two from this thread:[quote]
People are not willing to make compromises for animals. They are considered less than human, yet we’re all animals, and we all need the same thing. Food, rest, love, exercise, etc.[/quote]
So, it surprised me that you seemed to turn away from this long held position of “Animals first.” If you say “They are considered less than human” aren’t you saying that this is wrong and that they should be considered equal to humans, or considered more highly than humans because “They need us.” BTW, animals do not NEED love. How much love do most of these feral stray dogs and cats get? They don’t seem to be dropping dead from heartbreak and lonliness. Of course they are happier with love and affection, but the dogs that used to chase me in the hills around Taichung didn’t want my love, they wanted to ingest my testicles.
[quote]
I don’t think I asked anyone to starve in order for animals not to starve[/quote] This is asinine. Next you’ll be saying “Why not just kill them on sight and solve the problem once and for all!” with all the appropriate sky-is-falling hand and arm gesticulating. No one suggested starvation as a method to get rid of the dogs.
But it is a point you keep trying to make true via repetition:[quote]
Starving the dogs is not a solution, it is selfish, inhumane, and incongruous.[/quote]
In fact. On the first page of this thread you wrote:[quote]
The starving dogs, however, could use your sympathy.[/quote]
Where in the email did the person say the dogs were starving? Not in the portion you gave to us. yet you continue to creatively enhance the plight of these dogs by inventing cruelty and the appearance of not being compassionate, not only in the officials who want to fine people for feeding strays, but in posters on this board for supporting a “no-feed” policy.
As I wrote before, in a post that seems ignored, the goal here should not be a sustained stray dog population, desexed and well fed, it should be NO STRAYS. Period.
My son saw three kittens yesterday and said we should buy them some food, so we did. He wanted to do something for those three individual animals. I agreed because it is good for him to learn compassion for animals, however I did not go into a long and drawn out discussion of why feeding them actually hurts them in the long run via overpopulation etc
My son is seven. He is unable to handle the issue beyond the individual case, therefore compassion in each and every case is justifiable in his mind. You’re not seven. IMVHO, you should be focused on the long term goal of ending the stray dog population, not content yoursefl with putting metaphorical bandaids on every dog you find while simultaneously cursing people who aren’t as compassionate as you think they should be.
Stray dogs are a nuisance. I’d prefer not to get caught up in the causes because it doesn’t much help alleviate the problem and only leads to endless fingerpointing and bickering. Work on the solution: How to eliminate stray dogs from the streets in Taiwan (in the most efficacious and humane manner possible).
As far as I’m concerned, I hope you all go out of business. I hope that in a few years there is no need for groups lke yours that deal with strays, and that animal groups can focus on chipped pets that are unwanted and taken in BEFORE they are released on the street.
It seems to me that compromises can be drawn here that would make everyone happy:
(1) Feeders should be encouraged to set up feeding stations away from public areas.
(2) More should be done to target those at the root of the problem: irresponsible pet owners. The fines should be directed at them and the funds generated put toward effective methods of stray control (also the most humane).
(3) CNR should be actively promoted and conducted, with the community and government becoming involved.
(4) Those who wish to see more harmony between stray animals and the community should find ways to help clean up the mess stray dogs produce (including how the food is fed, which is often sen as littering when left in plastic bags or lunchboxes),
(5) Education is key to helping the public understand that removal of the dogs will never work to eradicate strays and that CNR is best, and for teaching the feeders how to feed responsibly (not overfeed, feed in non-public areas, clean up after strays, etc.). Also, there seems to be an incorrect belief that all strays are diseased - the public needs to understand how this is untrue, and how having known, vaccinated, desexed strays in an area can be beneficial (keep new unknown dogs away; eat the things that would otherwise attract less desirable animals, such as rats and cockroaches, or maybe even snakes; act as guard dogs, etc.)
All those in favour say ‘Aye’.
[quote=“redwagon”]
Dear oh dear. When pets are faced with starvation it’s a matter of compassion, but when culling is suggested, it’s a matter of responsibility. What a tangled mess of half-thought-through stuff that is. Don’t see the logic there. Sorry.[/quote]No problem, I can explain. It’s simple, really. I have said many times that animals are on the street as a direct result of people’s actions. What does that suggest? What does that imply? That we should be compassionate? And why is that? Because it’s our responsibility. Compassion is just an emotion driving people to help out, but the compassion itself is founded on the logic that we have a responsibility in all this. Letting the dogs starve is not responsible. It may help people, but it completely disregards the animals, and again, they are in that predicament because of people’s actions. A well rounded sense of responsibility in this issue calls for compassion, and alternative solutions/implementations. [quote]Do you think a former pet suffers more from hunger than a wild animal similarly deprived of food? [/quote]Of course not. But that’s not the point. [quote]I don’t see the distinction. On the one hand you want to forward the argument that an abandoned pet deserves as much compassion as a human, on the other hand you’re going to tell me a wild animal deserves less compassion than a domesticated dog. [/quote]Both animals deserve the same level of compassion, I think, but if you realize that domesticated animals suffer because of how people treat them, I think it emphasizes our responsibilities to make it right. Hence why I said that it’s more a matter of responsibilities. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and suggesting to let the animals starve in order to solve the problems they pose, which is ultimately our own creation(the stray problem), is just plain wrong. That is not assuming responsibilities for our actions. Now you can say that this only exacerbate the problem and the result is even more suffering. It’s true, but why look at issuing fines and giving hell to dog feeders as if it was the ONLY option available here? There are other options that do not involve starving the very animals people have abandoned in the first place. To that I say “Aye” in response to Sean’s suggestions. (Awesome post, BTW.)
[quote] I was working toward the idea of death as part of life, including death by starvation and disease. Happens all the time, all around you, everyday.[/quote]Then if it happens all the time, all around us, why in hell would we put legislations in place that will achieve just that? Why not find better solutions that will benefit both the animals, and the community? That, to me, would be the responsible thing to do to make a right of our wrong doing.
[quote]It’s considered humane to cull them and save them from a slow death. Agree with me so far?[/quote]If the starving part is inevitable and beyond your control, but certainly not if you pass and enforce legislations to cause the starvation of strays as a solution for the stray problem which is our own creation in the first place. That would be incredibly wrong.
[quote]In my opinion, a rational debate on the stray pet problem cannot include the history of the problem as anything other than a preface. How the situation came about isn’t important to the decision making process which will lead to a decision on how to resolve it. Only the Chinese need to apportion blame before a solution can be discussed. How a wild population got to be so out of balance with it’s food chain has no influence on the decision to go out and cull those animals. It doesn’t matter how it came to be. The problem is what it is, and nothing else.[/quote]I disagree strongly. By doing that, you only smoothen the edges for the continuing of what we call the throw away culture. By doing that, you send out yet once again a message that the animals are not important, and that will only lead people to carry on abandoning animals like they do old furniture. Approaching this problem with this philosophy is a lost battle in advance. People need to own up to what they created. That’s the first step to recovery.
[quote=“jd”]As a person setting up an animal rescue/welfare center you might rethink this policy to antagonizing the humans who will ultimately support your group. I do not need to accept stray dogs in my neighborhood. [/quote]Put it this way, I don’t think I should advocate starving animals if I want support with what I do, jd. In fact, I need to speak my mind out loud for people to understand that we are responsible for this mess, and that it’s up to us to fix it. If it means using words such as absurd, ridiculous, irresponsible, incongruous, selfish, etc, then so be it. And if you think that is antagonizing you, I really can’t do much about it. If you look at the poll, you’ll see that the result is 50/50 right now which makes it clear that this is a controversial subject. You should not read opposing views as if they are antagonistic. That’s controversy for you, and guess what, I’m quite content helping out animals, that’s what I do, and that’s what will earn me some support in the long run. Many activists as far as animal welfare were antagonized over the years, not the other way around. Gladly they spoke their minds because things would be even worse than they already are for our furry friends.
[quote]you have taken a position that promotes the welfare of the dogs above the concerns of any people in the equation. [/quote]The work I do benefits both the animals and the people. Unfortunately, there are always those unhappy that we speak for the animals instead of the people. But that’s what we do. We give the animals a voice, and that, in no way, does it mean that we don’t have people needs at heart. But our work is with animals, so please do not feel antagonized if we carry on doing just that.
[quote]If you do not see that you place your “compassion for the dogs” position above and beyond the concerns of the people who live work and play in areas infested with stray dogs, than there is not a whole lot I can say except please reread your own posts. [/quote]I mentioned that the stray problem is a real issue, haven’t I? This means that I do understand people’s concern, in fact I sympathize. But there are good and bad solutions to this problem, and I think that issuing fines to dog feeders is a bad solution. How does that represent placing compassion for animals above and beyond the concerns of people? OK now, you ask me to re-read my posts, but I asked you to put your money where your mouth is and quote me and all you got is this:[quote=“I”]People are not willing to make compromises for animals. They are considered less than human, yet we’re all animals, and we all need the same thing. Food, rest, love, exercise, etc[/quote]That is simply saying that as long as people regard stray animals as undesirable pests, they will treat them in despicable ways, down to issuing fines in order to watch them die one at the time from starvation. It’s simply saying that while people have needs, so do animals, and I would hope that we can treat them as such. Not as humans, they are not humans, but as living beings who deserve more from us than be left to starve.
[quote]No one suggested starvation as a method to get rid of the dogs. [/quote]Hmmm. By issuing fines to feeders, they go away. Then the next place they land, the same legislation is in place, so they move on again, and again, and again. All the while they are starving and they eventually die when their immune system is so low that they become susceptible to various lethal diseases. So yes, passing legislations against feeding dogs is effectively getting rid of the dogs, but in a very cruel way, if you ask me.
[quote]Where in the email did the person say the dogs were starving? Not in the portion you gave to us.[/quote]Good lord. You said that a couple times already, and Stimpy made it clear that Taiwan strays are starving animals. Besides, the email I quoted doesn’t mention that the dogs are starving, but that’s because they feed them! The point is that they WILL starve if they can’t carry on feeding them. How hard is that to understand?
Like I said, this is a controversial subject, but I’ll admit to be surprised that it turned out that way. Helping animals in need can be a very steep uphill battle, obviously.