Jump to content

wildewillie89

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    1,133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

646 Excellent

About wildewillie89

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Thailand

Recent Profile Visitors

2,315 profile views
  1. stop feeding street dogs

    Sounds a nice village. I think cow time is an actual law from memory. Where locals are allowed to walk their cows and buffalo on the roads legally at certain times of the day. But yeah, definitely depends on location. Where we are is technically still considered Meuang, but just far enough out to get countryside - so includes cow time.
  2. stop feeding street dogs

    http://www.thaigov.go.th/news/contents/details/1779 (On a side note, where does your information come from?) The last paragraph discusses a competition. In terms of the relevant official, they get government awards which help lead to cross department jobs, but also selected by their municipality committee to receive multiple pay rises over the year. In terms of the municipality, if win then they have continual study trips from municipalities around the country. Which leads to resorts, hotels, restaurants being used, increase in economy, re-election of Mayor. Government implemented the competition in an attempt to drive the policy. What has it got to do with the dog population? Garbage will continue to be openly available to dogs. The very thing that you apparently are an expert on as to what will solve the dog problem. The direction the ministry wants to go is to limit garbage, and the way they want to do it is to limit bins (leaving garbage open to dogs) - as the photo demonstrated. Your very solution was based on the need for bins. So if the country has decided it doesn't want to go down that path, then the solution is redundant. So a new solution must be thought of to control the dog population. I thought that was the point of a discussion. Finding out what ways will work, what ways will not work, and what ways are troubled by other variables (social, politics, religion, etc). From memory you criticised other potential ways to fix the problem, why do you go all hissy when someone says your way will not work?
  3. blood urgently needed

    If the ultrasound came back good (no cancers etc), then I would definitely re-assess if it has to be removed. Just purely due to how often he gets tick borne diseases. Probably slightly enlarged due to the Ehrlichia. From memory he has or has had Babesia and seems to have Ehrlichia every time you go back. Did they do another test for Babesia? Babesia needs 2-3 tests after treatment to make sure treatment works (as it is hard to get rid of). Not to mention if he keeps getting tick diseases, then obviously has chance of co-infections. Could explain a lot re anemia or even potential immune related anemia issues triggered by the Babesia. A lot of info out their relating to splenectomised dogs and Babesia, some places say dogs who have had their spleen removed and are suspected of having Babesia should be considered emergency patients so I would do it as a very last/no other choice resort. Have they ever discussed potential immune related issues (such as IMHA - quite common type of anemia)? The vets will find that difficult to diagnose probably as they are always getting positive results for tick diseases, but it is something that can be caused by blood parasites. Splenectomy may help patients of this, but again, a risk re Babesia. Was he on the Bravecto? Why picking up the Ehrlichia still?
  4. blood urgently needed

    So what was their opinion on removing the spleen?
  5. stop feeding street dogs

    You didn't know municipalities compete re garbage? You are talking a lot about garbage, but so far none of it is actually relevant to Thailand - all relevant to other countries. So I wonder what you are trying to achieve. A hypothetical that is not in line with the direction the ministry has stated it wants to go in? Good luck on that one. I have already explained, and even posted a photo of an example of it. Go and speak to your local municipality about the direction the ministry wants to go in as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about (re Thailand). It would explain the 'nonsense' comment, and then not being able to explain why it was nonsense and then also offering incredibly vague comments relevant to other countries (not Thailand).
  6. stop feeding street dogs

    Probably depends a lot on where people live as to how concerning it is for them. I live in a village and I have never stepped in dog shit as usually the dogs do it in the grass (away from cars/people's walk ways). Not to mention it decomposes quicker than back home as the food Thai dogs consume rarely includes actual meat, and also due to the warm climate. Buffalo and cow shit is all over the roads as they don't move for cars and causes already non-skilled drivers to swerve at high speeds.
  7. stop feeding street dogs

    One of the areas where the bins used to be at my workplace. The garbage bags had just been picked up by the municipality (twice a week), the rest of the time bags obviously have to be left there - field day for street dogs. Heavy reliance on the maintenance guy to sort through as best he can. From memory, I think it was an American who had a phd relating to garbage who did his thesis on a municipality in the US, which had no bins. Thailand paid him to come and give a lecture. The idea was if no bins then less rubbish, as the ministry was sick of subsidizing so much rubbish disposal. Now that would have worked if the country also outsourced companies to fine people littering, dumping or even if the country's municipalities had fining powers. Thailand do not have either of these for the most part. If someone litters/dumps, then you must go to the police with evidence, or if someone dumps/burns the official must get the elected Mayor to sign it off and ask the police to act on the fine. So in Thailand it was obviously going to be a disaster. Dogs are left to eat rubbish due to no bins and other Mayors were never going to go around fining every man and his dog for burning off rubbish due to no bins (political suicide) - which is why many Mayors didn't follow this idea and kept bins and didn't increase fees. But the point is the direction the government wants to go is very far from dog proof so new ideas need to be thought of to tackle the dog issue. On the incinerator, it is probably also due to the fierce competition the ministry sets between municipalities. They are awarded for the least amount of garbage tonnage they can achieve. Numbers are naturally not accurate because of this. So there could be enough rubbish around the place to warrant a few more, but the numbers will never show this in many provinces.
  8. stop feeding street dogs

    The problem comes to run them requires significant amounts of garbage, so many are turned off. Norway and Sweden have them and have to have rubbish imported to keep them going. I am not sure how much rubbish you think provinces make, but it was decided it wasn't enough. I can PM you the notes/discussion this weekend probably, but they would be in Thai so need to be translated. I completely agree with the last part. The municipalities have worked hard on trying to recycle and compost, but they can only work within their means. A cultural shift is required which would probably have to start with the younger generation. * An environmentalist's dream, you might have thought. Not necessarily, cautions the chair of Friends of the Earth Norway, Lars Haltbrekken. "The overall goal from an environmental perspective should be to reduce the amount of waste, reuse what we can reuse, recycle, and then the fourth option is to burn it and use the energy. "We have created such an overcapacity in these power plants in Norway and Sweden. We have made ourselves dependent on producing more and more garbage."
  9. stop feeding street dogs

    Ministry of Interior deal with local governments. The budget is so stretched the ministry's only solution was to increase the household fee by 7 times. If the budget is as big as you think, then why have they been forced to go down this path? I was under the impression these systems changed the attitude, that some places now have the mindset that they have to create rubbish just to keep the system going. I think the opponents of the incinerator system in Norway discussed this idea. I personally like it if it can bring in energy, however, Thai will need to have rubbish imported to run it. This could make them money, however, you can bet your life that process will not be dog proof. If not an incinerator, then what are the alternatives? You failed to answer this. As far as I know it is mostly landfills and incinerators that are discussed at the conferences. We are kidding ourselves if we think all landfills will ever be dog proof across the country. Regions are in competition in Thailand, you do realise this? Even municipalities within each province are in competition. The figures of how many tonnes of rubbish are collected are fixed because of this. Some residents in some provinces even travel to dump their rubbish to get lower weights further adding to the problem. To fix a problem you must look at it from the actual country's way of looking at it and go from there, not from extremely developed ways that Thai people will turn off to as soon as you open your mouth.
  10. stop feeding street dogs

    For starters, the direction the ministry wants to now go is away from bins. My workplace have removed all their bins already as the municipality decided to to go with the government. Where I live decided to go against what the government wanted and kept their bins (every municipality had the choice). The environmentally friendly ways are expensive and need more rubbish than provinces actually have. I think a few provinces around us looked into getting one of those incinerators (that create energy) and then realised the amount of rubbish needed wasn't possible. So landfill remained the better option. Where is the money coming from for these initial investments, and what are the actual investments that are dog proof? Yes, the bigger municipalities own things like hotels etc, however the smaller municipalities still need to pay those big municipalities to use their garbage disposal system. Like I said, even now if a municipality charged 7x what they currently do it doesn't even break even for even a dog friendly landfill system. Let alone a system that is protected from dogs. Smaller municipalities (majority of the country) without things like hotels or tax from businesses have no hope. Garbage disposal therefore does need to be a fee on the household, which will inevitably mean the result will be dogs are a lesser problem than the fee. Garbage was the biggest issue last year and this year for municipalities due to strain on the budget it is causing, which is why the push to increase the fee was put forward.
  11. stop feeding street dogs

    How can they be introduced though? Many people pay what, 20 baht? Not long back the government wanted municipalities to increase this to 150 baht per month as the government is having to use so much money to cover sending rubbish to city landfills. Even asking the amount of 7x what people currently pay wouldn't have been enough. Some Mayors decided to increase the fee, but the majority didn't for the simple reason it would be political suicide. If given the choice, I think a fair percentage of the people would probably just prefer to have the dogs than pay more for more effective waste disposal.
  12. blood urgently needed

    What was the result of the ultrasound?
  13. The clubs, who even themselves admit, just left defending themselves too long. The media had all the chances in the world and jumped on the opportunity to label them as criminal gangs. Some members of the groups didn't help the ease of generating the image by being involved in public illegal activity. From the government/police point of view, they seem to think they have the intelligence that a lot of it has moved away from just loving bikes and moved into making money in questionable ways. If the law is just based on his own involvement in criminal activity then fair game to the government to do what they have to do. Bike clubs have had a lot of attention for a long time now (whether rightly or wrongly), so members have had a lot of warning to make sure they are squeaky clean. If it is purely based on the fact he is connected with a bike club then not fair game. However, I feel there would be current investigations not open to the public which has formed the decision in the end, rather than he is just a member of a motorcycle club. He can fight that in the courts. Your actions always catch up with you. Yes, people deserve second chances. However, when you know you are not a citizen, you know you have previous serious convictions and you know you have a family, then that should be enough to make the decision to leave. Seems the decision for him to leave the club is very easy now once he is facing consequences. Should have done it for your family before.
  14. stop feeding street dogs

    The issue with the video wasn't about the dog problem. Is was about a lack of supervision. That is, even when the dogs are taken off the streets if the child isn't supervised the same result will occur, as it does in parks, yards, when dogs get loose etc in Western countries. The 'I survived' argument surely isn't relevant when there are still millions of dog bites per year with the measures of taking them off the streets implemented. In the UK alone haven't dog attack figures risen 76% in the last 10 years? And two thirds of fatalities are children? The US is something closer to 5 million per year. In Australia, children are 3 times more likely to need medical attention from dog bites than adults. Dog attack figures have even increased with the Dangerous Dog bans in developed countries (that were forced in due to an ignorant response to the problem of dogs biting rapidly rising). Many people don't survive and many are traumatized.due to their parents taking it easy. I know it is hard for some to accept, but there is a bigger world out there than 'when I was young'. So in the case of the video, regardless of if soi dogs were there or not, the kid was in a dangerous situation as she was on a road and not being supervised (dogs, people, vehicles - did you not see the motorcycle in the video indicating traffic on the most dangerous roads in the world?). Are you saying that I should not bother having fences up around my property? That I should just leave my kids to their own devices around my dogs as nothing is a given in the world and anything can kill them? Isn't that the opposite to your earlier stance of taking the dogs off the streets? That even if the dogs were off the streets the kids then may be attacked by snakes, scorpions, rats, hornets etc as nothing is a given. The point is obviously to minimalise chances of these things happening and play the percentages. As the dogs are a constant in my environment then they need to be looked out for first. In the case of Thailand, as dogs aren't coming off the streets anytime soon due to social, political and religious reasons, the only way to minimalise risk is supervision. Supervision to an age where the kid is physically and emotionally capable of handling situations (which obviously will vary with each child). We need to look at it more logically, there isn't going to be a mass cull or neuter of dogs anytime soon whether it is needed or not. So look at education and putting in practices that have more chance of actually being achieved (supervision of young children). All of my relatives know that if we are at their house their gates must be closed, it didn't take long for them to change their ways with some education. Even my nephew who is in kindergarten now shuts the gate after him when he gets dropped off through routine.
  15. stop feeding street dogs

    Both need supervision. Is the argument to lock up dogs and lets kids roam the streets on the most dangerous roads in the world? Both animal and child require supervision. You are not going to tell me Thai kids have been educated on road safety too are you? Why do you 'honestly' believe young children do not require supervision? Can also be rhetorical :) However, seeing as that is not the current environment in Thailand as dogs and children are allowed to roam then at least any supervision is required. I would say due to other variables in the community and the fact parents should be with children anyway that supervision of their child may be easier for them than the dog they don't really care about. We can all dream about a perfect world, but that is a long way off in Thailand, so you put in steps to prevent these things from happening. I have now installed 3 fences in different areas within my border to make sure even if there is a slight chance I am unable to 100% supervise my children, I know they will be safe (and that is with the two family dogs who have been raised/socialised with the kids and have a reputation for being incredibly gentle with their own). If people want to take unnecessary risks with their kids, that is their choice. But don't play the blaming the child card for emotive responses. You put your child in a dangerous situation, then expect a dangerous outcome. The same thing happens in an off leash dog park in the West when parents don't properly supervise.
×