Gman wrote:You live in Taiwan right? Assuming you do, are you really certain the writting more tighter regulations for law enforcement to ignore is a practical solution? Now before you say that of course you mean the you want tighter enforcement, you need to remember where you live.
Yeah, i live in Taiwan - I've been here a long time - and I am glad you brought that up because it reminds me of a good point. When i first got here, you could smoke in restaurants, even on some trains, there was no law regarding the wearing of helmets on motorbikes, you could park wherever the hell you liked, you could freely dump your trash in the street (in fact, that was the system), there were no bike paths, industry could flagrantly dump chemical waste straight into rivers (not saying that problem has been eradicated, but definitely lessened), there was no recycling, counterfeit DVD's were freely available (kind of miss that one) and you didn't have to pay for plastic bags - that's just a few off the top of my head. And oh, traps were legal. So clearly Taiwan does have the capacity to make changes - for the better - there is a track record. So saying that 'This is Taiwan - dog regulation could never happen here' is nothing more than an apathetic cop out. It can happen.
And as I've said a bunch of times, the key starting point is registration - including a substantial one-time registration fee. And this is the critical part. Once you introduce that fee you will immediately discourage most of the people who go to a market or walk past a pet store and buy that cute little doggy in the window on impulse, and then get sick of looking after it and either allow it to roam free or straight out dump it.
The second thing is that this collective fee creates a decent pool of money that could be used to set up a department who's job it is to get up each day and go out and impound stray dogs. Additonally, the money could be used to fund an RSPCA type body to prevent the cruel treatment of pets, and run advertisements to educate dog owners on their responsibilites (for example - you can't let your dog roam free), as well as how to take care of it. If there is any money left over then it could be used to subsidize de-sexing - which must be compulsory - subsidy or no subsidy.
It's all very, very do-able. We know that because it's been done in a stack of other countries. It's time it happened in Taiwan. Instead of trying to keep finding excuses for inconsiderate arse-hole behaviour, it would be much more useful for 'dog lovers' to start putting pressure on the relevant govt authorities to start making these simple changes. It will happen eventually, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't happen tomorrow.
Actually I don't see how banning traps treats the symptom at all. If the symptom is loose pets and the cause is irresponsible pet ownership then by definition it is the traps that are treating the symptom. Banning the traps mitigate treating the symptom.
Yeah, you're quite right. What I was trying to say was that dogs getting caught in traps is a symptom of the problem caused by dogs being allowed to roam and rampantly breed.