Taiwan Bans Steel-Jaw Traps

[dulan drift]

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.

[Gman]

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)

I'm sure things have improved but, they are all things I've observed happening anyways. Would you be willing to accept an improvement as good enough to put away the traps. If you went from say losing 24 chickens a year down to 12 would that statisfy you? It's moot anyways because I actually agree that there should be some sort of pet registration. I actually would be surprised to learn that anyone on this forum is advocating irresponsible pet ownership (ok not surprised I suppose). But, this really isn't what this discussion is about is it? Isn't this discussion really about whether steel-jaw traps are a proper response to this problem?

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.

Maybe but considering I've read on the forum that people here are willing to pay 60,000nt for a JRT because it's cute and that still doesn't stop them from abanoning them, I'm skeptical.

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.

I skimmed a thread on this and seem to recall there was a case in Taipei where millions were allocated to a shelter and 90% of the funds disappeared. I'm paraphasing and may be off on the exact figures but, the point is that what I've observed here is that large pools of money left allocated for things here seem to end up in foreign bank accounts.

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.

Agreed, but doesn't that still mean traps are only dealing with the symptom? Also, it doesn't appear to be working all that great. So in short I really don't question anything you have to say about responsible pet ownership infact, I think it's pretty hard to argue. The issue for me is that nothing you've mentioned is any kind of defence for the use of steel jaw traps.

[dulan drift]

If you went from say losing 24 chickens a year down to 12 would that statisfy you?

Not really, no.

Maybe but considering I've read on the forum that people here are willing to pay 60,000nt for a JRT because it's cute and that still doesn't stop them from abanoning them, I'm skeptical.

Don't think you read that on this thread - do you mean another thread? Anyway, even if there was a case like that, I doubt too many people in Taiwan could afford to blow 60 large on pet only to abandon it. I'm not sure what a JRT is, I'm assuming it's one of those small cute dogs - they are definitely not the kind that are out there tearing people's poultry from limb to limb. Not in my experience anyway.

I skimmed a thread on this and seem to recall there was a case in Taipei where millions were allocated to a shelter and 90% of the funds disappeared. I'm paraphasing and may be off on the exact figures but, the point is that what I've observed here is that large pools of money left allocated for things here seem to end up in foreign bank accounts.

I am not saying that may have not happened - but if your evidence for your argement is: 'I skimmed a thread on this and seem to recall...', then it's not terribly rigorous, is it? If you could dig up a few more details then that would be good.
Basically, registration is a tax. Now, if you are arguing that because there was a case where revenue was ripped off by a criminal, then therefore we shouldn't have any taxes, then that doesn't really hold water.

Agreed, but doesn't that still mean traps are only dealing with the symptom? Also, it doesn't appear to be working all that great. So in short I really don't question anything you have to say about responsible pet ownership infact, I think it's pretty hard to argue. The issue for me is that nothing you've mentioned is any kind of defence for the use of steel jaw traps.

I agree that we are agreed.
As for the other point, the reason that you have found 'nothing (I've) mentioned is any kind of defence for the use of steel jaw traps' is because the defence of the steel trap, per se, is not actually my argument. To be honest, I wouldn't mind if they are banned if it was done in conjunction with a serious crack-down on roaming dogs. What I have argued consistently is that the farmer has a right to defend his stock and given the situation he is faced with, rampant packs of roaming dogs, then he has very few defensive options (remembering guns are illegal). Traps were one of those, and I don't blame them one little bit for using them to deal with a problem that is not of his making. The only other one is poisoning, which i consider to be far worse - but unfortunately that's the only option he has left now. (You mentioned live cages - (a) they are not available for sale in Taiwan that I have seen and (b) they don't work with dogs - I've tried - dogs are too smart to go into them.)

Or: As we have already agreed - start forcing people to get their bloody dogs under control. If there were no marauding dogs, the farmer wouldn't need to set traps for them. Or posion them.

[Gman]

If you went from say losing 24 chickens a year down to 12 would that statisfy you?

Not really, no.

Well then that would seem to present a bit of an hinderence to pet registration solving your problem wouldn't it. In fact the areas of Taiwan where I've seen enforcement at is most lax is the very type of rural area you live in. And, no I'm pointing this out and saying that there shouldn't be any pet registration. Just like I wouldn't susgest doing away with all traffic rules in view of the lax enforcement I see on the roads here.

Maybe but considering I've read on the forum that people here are willing to pay 60,000nt for a JRT because it's cute and that still doesn't stop them from abanoning them, I'm skeptical.

Don't think you read that on this thread - do you mean another thread? Anyway, even if there was a case like that, I doubt too many people in Taiwan could afford to blow 60 large on pet only to abandon it. I'm not sure what a JRT is, I'm assuming it's one of those small cute dogs - they are definitely not the kind that are out there tearing people's poultry from limb to limb. Not in my experience anyway.

Yeah, I did say forum and not thread. JRT refers to Jack Russel Terrier and while I doubt they are they ones vexing you they would cetainly be capable of it.

I am not saying that may have not happened - but if your evidence for your argement is: 'I skimmed a thread on this and seem to recall...', then it's not terribly rigorous, is it? If you could dig up a few more details then that would be good.
Basically, registration is a tax. Now, if you are arguing that because there was a case where revenue was ripped off by a criminal, then therefore we shouldn't have any taxes, then that doesn't really hold water.

Nothing on this flob sould be taken as rigerous and I'm not really saying that such an issue means registration should be adandoned. Actually the point really is that there is plenty of money available to deal with this public issue and you don't need to set up a special pool of funds with it's own compliment of buerecrats to waste the funds or mismanage the program. The money doesn't even have to be ripped of by a criminal. Criminal or not, large pools of funds inside the government do not have a long shelf life. There is no reason why such a program can't be run out of the regular budget.

The only other one is poisoning, which i consider to be far worse - but unfortunately that's the only option he has left now.

Is poisoning legal?

[dulan drift]

Actually the point really is that there is plenty of money available to deal with this public issue and you don't need to set up a special pool of funds with it's own compliment of buerecrats to waste the funds or mismanage the program... There is no reason why such a program can't be run out of the regular budget.

Actually my point is that the money does need to come from the dog owners' pockets. Apart from the 'user pays' principle, the revenue generated would ensure that the realative bodies are not left understaffed and underfunded - which is what we have now. And as i mentioned, a decent rego fee would make prospective dog owners think about it a bit more seriously and deter a lot of impulse buyers.

[Ex Animo]

DD, I'm enjoying and agreeing with your posts a lot more now your (seeming but understandable) anger has subsided. Just one point, though, regarding live traps for dogs, we use them a lot for catching dogs (and cats) in need of rescue or neutering, and we find them effective about 75 percent of the time.

[Gman]

Actually the point really is that there is plenty of money available to deal with this public issue and you don't need to set up a special pool of funds with it's own compliment of buerecrats to waste the funds or mismanage the program... There is no reason why such a program can't be run out of the regular budget.

Actually my point is that the money does need to come from the dog owners' pockets. Apart from the 'user pays' principle, the revenue generated would ensure that the realative bodies are not left understaffed and underfunded - which is what we have now. And as i mentioned, a decent rego fee would make prospective dog owners think about it a bit more seriously and deter a lot of impulse buyers.

Yeah that always works... it's a great principle but, look let's agree to disagree on this point shall we? I'm not really prepared to argue vigorously on what is basically semantics. A quick question for someone better informed, in Canada for example we have registration and licensing and to the best of by knowledge we still have an over abundence of unwated pets (or I could be wrong about this). My impression has been that Canada just does a better job rounding the up and 'processing them'. I'm not trying to shoot down the idea of registration. I'm just trying to get an idea of how effective it would actually be.

[Gman]

DD, I'm enjoying and agreeing with your posts a lot more now your (seeming but understandable) anger has subsided. Just one point, though, regarding live traps for dogs, we use them a lot for catching dogs (and cats) in need of rescue or neutering, and we find them effective about 75 percent of the time.

Yes I was surpirsed that the dogs would be too smart for fences and live traps. I figured if they got any smarter you could just negotiate with them . But, concerning my question: Is poison legal?

[Pingdong]

ya dulan, I do agree with all your saying except on the not blaming farmers bit on getting traps. All you and others mention about restraining dogs is 100% correct, what is off is the fact farmers are intentionally hurting things to protect their own. whether dogs/cats harm native animals is a tad irrelevant as no one is setting out leg hold traps to save the native species, they are trying to protect their own crops. All of which are also not native.

My main point is that the people that buy these things and use them are doing so knowing what is going to happen to the animal. Even after that, many areas have more wild dogs than free roaming pet dogs, so no one is responsible for them. As I have always said, ia agree with all your thoughts on responsible ownership, I am just incredibly against doing another wrong and torturing/killing the cats/dogs ed to protect chickens easier. Nor am i pro regulation without first also changing other aspects like having minimum run space, outlaw cages etc. the whole registration thing is a good idea, but here in Taiwan is really bad news for the animals without first changing other stuff like cages, tide up etc. if i stand on my road i can see 5 cages with doges in them, one is covered in black plastic and left in the sun all day. its been reported and still remains. this stuff would amplify if they started registering dogs and charging people for free roaming mutts killing chickens, and frankly isnt a better situation in my honest opinion.



the big deal seems to be with farmers, and all farmers grow/raise are exotic species. so on a natural basis they are no more or less important than a cat or dog. its only economy, and that is not just cause to end up caging/torturing/killing more dogs and cats. The registration thing needs more thought, something i personally don't think Taiwan is ready to put into action.

[dulan drift]

the big deal seems to be with farmers, and all farmers grow/raise are exotic species. so on a natural basis they are no more or less important than a cat or dog. its only economy, and that is not just cause to end up caging/torturing/killing more dogs and cats. The registration thing needs more thought, something i personally don't think Taiwan is ready to put into action.

Except for one important difference that you seem to have conveniently forgotten. Farmers produce food! Dogs and cats don't. Also the stock that farmers raise is not out there actively killing other animals. It's a double standard. You don't seem to mind poultry/wildlife being tortured/killed - and that's exactly what happens when dogs and cats are allowed to run amok.

You use the cages as an excuse for dragging your feet, but the plan I have suggested creates money to have that policed.

If you really want to solve the problem, then I have explained how. If you don't, then be prepared for farmers to be pissed off and you have no right to go bleating about how they trapped/poisoned a maruading dog or cat to defend themselves against a situation that is not of their making.