Return to the Pet Debates Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

Posted by onewebfoot (My Page) on
Sat, Nov 11, 06 at 13:00

I have to credit others for bringing this story to my atention. But here is the story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_re_as/china_one_dog_policy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15664083/

Observations?
1. Even Communist China recognizes the crisis created by having too many dogs around people. The first Chinese manifestation just happens to arise in Beijing, which has seen a 20% increase in dog population in a mere one year. Incredible.

2. The Chinese protesters seem to be comprised at least in large part by dog owners who have multiple dogs, and pet shop owners and breeders.

3. If an extremist communist government recognizes the public health issues created by having too many dogs, how far behind can Western governments be? Sincere question.

4. If dog lovers do not control themselves, and control their pets, and the numbers of their pets continues to grow, and owners refuse to acknowledge the rights of others to have peace, then dogs will suffer, and "dog lovers" will be the cause. I've been saying this for months. China has fulfilled every prediction I've had thus far. It's extreme. It's severe. It's also inevitable. Dog owners - you better wake up.

5. Interesting - but owners of multiple dogs, even in China, seem to think they have an inalienable right to have as many dogs as they want, no matter what the impact to neighbors around them, no matter the impact to society at large, and no matter the impact to dogs. Interesting.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

I find it laughable that an overpopulation of dogs is a concern when the overpopulation of humans is what puts a huge strain on natural resources and the environment in general. And as far as China's (and for that matter, most Asian countries) policy on animals, their disregard and outright abuse and torture of animals for no reason except superstition and stupidity is despicable!!


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

agreed on the extreme measures that countries like this take against animals. Asian countries also slaughter thousand or millions of sharks by cutting off their fins, and throwing the fatally injured animals alive back into the sea.

Noting your comment about over populations (in general), China has already attempted to control human populations, and that too is extreme. But the numbers of dogs in Beijing reveals an inevitable trend that will hit western countries also, in my perspective. That is, unless governments would rather "slaughter" humans to make room for more dogs, then more extreme measures against dogs are likely to arise. Interesting comments. Looking for more.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

Someone needs to develop a birth control drug that can be shot in a dart gun at stray/feral dogs and cats.

Unfortunately, pet owners don't spay and neuter, worldwide. :(


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

Some of their issues is with rabies. That is not a big problem here.
Banning of vicious and large dogs is. A ban on vicious dogs is one thing but large dogs? That's a scary thought.

The one dog limit is a scary thought too. Anyone notice that Inbred Newkirk of PETA has no problem with that? It was generous of her to throw in the granfather clause though. (pfffftt)

I do have to agree that animal lovers need to wake up. Whenever I hear of another dog attack I get sick to stomach.Irresponsble pet owners are going to be our downfall. I just don't know what all we can do about it. I wish laws were a bit stricter and enforced when a dog bite is reported. Depending on the severity of the bite/attack and circumstances surrounding it, I think many of them should be euthanized immediately. Unfortunately that doesn't help in the cases with no prior history of being vicious as in the case of the dogs killing that baby recently. Just a very stupid owner.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

China has limited couples to one child, thereby making millions of female orphans. Women in China have roadside ultrasounds and if they are pregnant with a girl, they abort in some very scary places and under less than desirable circumstances. They use dog as a food product, and this is what we are talking about - limiting the number of dogs??? I can own as many as my town's regulates. That's the beauty of the good old USA.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

labmomma, I see your point. yes - the US allows countless freedoms, and the law's limits are your right. not a question, in my mind. but do you believe there is no chance that any western government in any city on the globe won't enact increased restrictions against dogs sometime in the future? as for China eating the dogs they have just outlawed, that certainly seems one pragmatic solution. I don't know if China "ranches" dogs now to feed their food chain. good question.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

There are new restrictions on dogs all the time. All are due to irresponsible pet owners. Dogs strayiny, intruding on a neighbors right to enjoy their home, barking, biting, killing kids, killing other pets an so on. We need to ban stupid owners and not limit the good owners to a certain number of animals. If only we could figure out a way to do that. :-(


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

Dog attacks - especially the maiming and killing of children - will not be the only "downfall" of those who like them as companion animals. The biggest threat to dog-ownership, globally, is the uncontrolled noise generated by them and arrogantly permitted by irresponsible owners. The barking noise that is delivered to those who do not want it, regardless of their health and well-being, is on the agendas of human health authorities and thousands upon thousands of hapless victims of it. Neighbourhood noise(predominantly barking dogs) is universally recognised as a serious human health hazard that is proven to cause depression, anxiety, raised blood pressure and heart disease. Barking dogs are statistically the most complained-about and widespread source of environmental noise with severe adverse impacts on unwilling recipients. The barking of dogs causes sleep deprivation that results in drowsy driving and fatigue-related crashes. Domestic dog-ownership is, unfortunately for responsible dog-owners, rapidly heading the way of cigarette smoke. And we all know where that went.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

LOL, I didn't realize it was that serious. I guess because I just grin and bare the barking dogs. Mine, I bring in immediately when they try to join in. The neighbors right next to me are the same way, but several neighbors on down the road aren't as considerate, and sound really travels here.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

The vast majority of the restrictive animal laws that we have in this country have come about because of irresponsible owners. Because there are so many people who have no respect for the rights of others and view pets as a disposable commodity, we have license laws, leash laws, numbers laws, barking laws, breed bans, and the list goes on. And who complies with all of these laws? The responsible pet owners of course. The responsible pet owners buy the licenses for their pets every year. The bad guys ignore the requirement. It's cheaper to pay the fine when they get caught........if they get caught. Why do my cats need licenses? They never set their paws outside of the house. Because I own more than 15 cats, I must have a license from the Dept of Agriculture which currently costs $350 per year. I must license each individual animal with the City every year which is another $3.00 per cat, and that's the Senior citizen rate. So there you are. I spend $590 each year just for licenses before I can put a bite of food in their mouths.

Our city didn't used to have a limit on the number of cats a person could own. Then they had a few high profile collector situations that they had trouble prosecuting. Now we have a limit of 5 cats per household unless you have a Fanciers Permit. I was the first person to get the Fanciers Permit for felines. Now there's even a limit on the Fanciers Permit because people got Fanciers Permits that later had to be revoked. Mine is grandfathered, thank goodness. I'm just a pet owner. Our city is full of cat breeders that should have permits. Only one cat breeder has a Fancier Permit and she is a friend of mine. I convinced her that it was in the best interest of her cats to comply with the law. That permit protects her from crank complaints. The rest of the cat breeders are underground, even the otherwise responsible breeders.

Our city also has a Pit Bull ban. The Pit Bulls and other restricted breeds that already lived in the City were allowed to stay provided their owner complied with certain requirements. Among those requirements is a large annual license fee; dog must be leashed and muzzled when off their property; when on their property, it must be housed in a special kennel; they must post signs on their property that a dangerous dog lives there; $100,000 worth of liability insurance, etc. Who complies with those requirements? The responsible Pit Bull owners who care about their pets, of course. The bad guys just take their chances until their unlicensed, untrained Pit Bull takes a child's arm off. Then their dog gets confiscated and destroyed and they go out and get another one. There is an element in our society that gets these potentially dangerous dogs and actually teach them to be nasty. Then they wear them like an extension of their manhood.

Most cities have had dog leash laws for years. Our city has a cat confinement law. Cats must be on leashes or in carriers when they are off the owners property. They must also be licensed and wearing their tags.It is because of owners who believe their cats should roam free, without regard for the rights of neighbors that we have this law. When this law went into effect, the pounds really filled up with cats.

I guess I've gone on long enough. You might start throwing things at me. This is an interesting topic.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

You go girl! You pretty much said it all. :-)


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

i suppose there always has to be someone in a crowd who says "you go girl," which contributes nothing to anyone but the speaker's needs - whatever they are. But please note, Beanne - yes - the barking dogs issues are that serious. You apparently see and acknowledge the needs of your neighbors, and I applaud you sincerely for that. Thank you. For more information that proves it is not a laughing matter, take a look at www.barkingdogs.net.

Cat Lady - I regret that irresponsible owners have created the need for regulations, annual licenses, and other matters that ultimately hit and increase costs for you. This is, in my estimation, and as you might expect, born of irresponsible owners who have to be regulated, and yet only resoponsible owners really toe the line with regulations. I don't know what the total solution to irresponsible owners is or could be, other than an outright and comprehensive ban on pets, but the gist of my point thus far is that responsible owners will be hit harder and harder and harder until the problem of irresponsible ownership is finally hit, somewhere in the process. Glad you enjoyed the discussions. I have also. Thank you, all.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

Cat Lady - I regret that irresponsible owners have created the need for regulations, annual licenses, and other matters that ultimately hit and increase costs for you. This is, in my estimation, and as you might expect, born of irresponsible owners who have to be regulated, and yet only resoponsible owners really toe the line with regulations. I don't know what the total solution to irresponsible owners is or could be, other than an outright and comprehensive ban on pets, but the gist of my point thus far is that responsible owners will be hit harder and harder and harder until the problem of irresponsible ownership is finally hit, somewhere in the process. Glad you enjoyed the discussions. I have also. Thank you, all.

You go girl! :-)


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

and yes - you go girl!! :-) I "go" in a male way, corrected and/or better informed, i trust. :-)


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

Yes, you trust right. I stand corrected. Sorry about that. ((embarrassed face)) You go guy.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

Remember that up until just a couple years ago, any pets were forbidden in commie China. They were considered bourgeois and decadent (feeding unnecessary animals when they didn't have enough to feed people, etc.) So, they're actually allowing pets now, albeit with restrictions, just as we have, on the number of pets allowed.

I guess they're not up on Rabies vax and registrations yet. Hundreds of Chinese die each year from Rabies. If we had hundreds of deaths from bird flu each year and it was found that bird flu was being spread by pet birds, what would we do? Hmmm....


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

Ithought chinese ate dogs too. I know the vietamese do and my DH saw how it was killed once and i would'nt repeat it on this forum ever.
We may get to the point someday where we will only be allowed to have one pet but there will be a big uproar and another solution will probably be found,when backed into an uncomfortable corner Americans do come up with some good compromises.

When it comes to saying "go girl,guy" not being pertinant to a thread. There are times when someone says exactly what we would say or even put it better is it not better to say an encouraging word than to repeat what was said. : )
Far Out!! Ya'll.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

oaklief, :-)

Oh, the rabies thing. :-( I really didn't think we had much of a problem in this country. Shortly after I posted my feelings on that, heard on the news where 90 animals were euthanized in a shelter here because one had rabies. My question, did they all have to be killed? Does anyone have any experience with this. I haven't heard anything about it since.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

The days when one person's perceived right to own and permit their dog(s) to deliver barking noise into the home environment of any other person will soon be over. In days gone by, many dog-owners thought that their "rights" to keep a noisy domestic animal outweighed the rights of anyone within hearing distance who did not want to listen to this. The balance is changing. And many taxpayers are also objecting to the requirement for them to subsidise the considerable local budgetary costs associated with unacceptable dog behaviour. This is why dog ownership fees will eventually be substantially increased - so that the dog-owning community becomes totally financially responsible. This is inevitable, because so many in the dog-loving community have disrespected their privilege (and arrogantly disrespected their neighbours). Sleep disruption is scientifically acknowledged as being a very serious and dangerous hazard to human life. So if someone has a dog that barks even a few times during a neighbour's sleep cycle, causing disturbance or awakening at critical times during the sleep pattern, the dog-owner is directly responsible (and culpable) for placing another individual at risk - a situation has been occasioned where an innocent neighbour may be awakened and subsequently unable to return to much-needed sleep. These situations are a violation of their human rights and potential safety. This is not restricted to night-time barking either - the way that our world now operates means that an increasing number of humans are working at different hours on the clock, and they need their sleep during daylight. Yet many dog-owners continue to permit their dog(s)to bark during the daytime! But the times - they-are-a-changin' : the most regretable statistic unfortunately remains - thousands upon thousands of humans who have been forced to endure immense suffering in the meantime.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

It is reasonable to only own one small dog in a crowded urban area. Dogs need room not only on their owner's land but also safe public areas for their owners to walk them on leash.
Dogs need a lot of training, a lot of care, and a lot of attention. Most dog owners seem unable to provide for the needs of one dog. Many ignorant people think that the solution lies in buying multiple dogs because the dogs will take care of each other. That is just stupid. More than one dog is just more work. One owner has a limited amount of time, energy, and money to take care of pets - it is reasonable to restrict the amount of pets per household and to restrict who can own dogs and cats.

Dog owners unwilling to spend time with their dog or train their dog should not buy more and more dogs. That is cruel to the neighbors and cruel to the dogs.

Pet ownership needs to be very restricted because we are having too many problems due to lack of reasonable restrictions and enforcement. The culture of animal ownership is inconsiderate, irresponsible and often malicious. Too many pet owners trample on the rights of their neighbors denying them peace and safety in their own homes and communities. Pet owners are unwilling to be responsible so we have to make them be responsible or make them non-pet owners.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

So because some people are unable to care for one dog properly, everyone should suffer? Not all dogs need lots of room to run. Many are perfectly happy to live the same life their owner is living, and maybe that person is able to care for more than 1. Personally, I can't remember a time that I owned only one dog, and most people I know have more than one.

Why not just enforce the noise laws and leave responsible pet owners alone? By the way, just curious, ipzipi, what do you think of the REAL noise that bombards your senses at all hours of the night and day? Should we sue everyone who makes a sound that disturbs our REM state?


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

You may not think dog barking is real noise but I can assure you to many, many people it is.

I am dang near tortured by it.

There is no reason for most of it other than the owner has locked the dog(s) outside either during the day or all night or both and the dogs are unhappy.

Dogs are supposed to bark when someone enters their yard or knocks on the door but nuisance barking dogs bark at anything and everything.

They bark when an airplane goes by, they bark when a car goes by, they bark when they hear another dog bark, they bark when they see a bird/squirrel/butterfly etc. they bark at the mailman, they bark at the garbage man, they bark at any movement they see or hear or they just plain bark to shout out their misery at being left alone....

I've got 4 neighbors in my immediate vicinity whose dogs bark far more than they should and many more farther away that I can still hear.

This is with my windows closed, we installed air conditioning because we could not sleep at night with them open due to dogs.

I work from home and the endless yapping really hurts my concentration and gives me headaches.

Bark laws are not enforced here, they won't even take reports. They just tell you how to print out information for the dog owner and give it to them.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

I'm sorry for your situation Buyorsell, I really am. I don't like barking dogs either and we have them here too. Not as bad though. However I don't think the answer is to restrict people to owning only one small dog, as nativebear suggests.


 o
RE: Communist China's extreme action against extreme dog numbers

"It is reasonable to only own one small dog in a crowded urban area."

I merely suggested that those who live in crowded urban areas should choose a dog that would fit in with that lifesyle - such as a small lap dog. A larger dog that needs lots of exercise or any dog that is hyper and active would probably not be suited for city living - especially if the owner were unwilling or unable to walk the dog (on a leash of course). I believe people should look at their lifestyles when deciding whether to have a dog and deciding which dog to select. There are websites set up for this purpose - where you can put your wants and lifestyle in and they will come up with a percentage match of which dog breed might be best for your situation. A dog is a living creature and deserves consideration. It is not wise to buy a dog at the spur of the moment like you would a pack of gum or a soda pop. Such choices often create misery for the dog, owner, and community.

"One owner has a limited amount of time, energy, and money to take care of pets - it is reasonable to restrict the amount of pets per household and to restrict who can own dogs and cats."

I believe the above is clear and simple but apparently not. I have heard of collectors who believe that they can house and care for an unlimited number of dogs or cats - but this is a form of mental illness. Most sane people would agree that one person or one family can only care for a limited amount of dogs or cats. At some point it gets unreasonable and you are labeled mentally ill collectors.

Now should the authorities allow animals and the community to suffer so they can access each situation to see if this person can own 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 15, 25, 40, 66, 138, etc dogs or cats or should they set some sort of limit or limits based on zoning and space available? Do animal owners pay for animal control to assess each animal owning household or even assess those households with complaints? The answer in most communities is no. Animal control is usually underfunded and undermanned and animals and their owners are out of control.

Animal owners whine and whine about regulations and complain about animal cruelty etc. Animal cruelty will probably never end but the one thing that could put a real dent in animal cruelty is strict regulations and strict enforcement.

All of us have to conform to regulations and laws because they were deemed to be in the best interest of the community. For instance we must drive our cars under a certain speed. Many of us can drive faster and still be safe. However, many people will push their limits and drive at a speed where they are unable to control their vehicle. So a speed limit had to be established for everybody. Same with traffic lights. Many of us could function without a light telling us when to go and when to stop. However, some of us would not yield to other drivers without that red light and the possibility of a traffic ticket. The examples go on and on. Basically societies have to have rules and regulations to function properly and the larger and more dense the society the more rules and regulations you need.

What you would suffer from only owning one or two dogs or owning no dogs if you couldn't handle the responsibilities and costs of dog ownership pales in comparision to those who are drivin out of their homes and made physically ill due to the constant irritation of a barking dog or dogs.

Remember by endorsing the status quo you are condoning the abuse and neglect of animals and sacrificing the health and safety of humans in your community. Also you think nothing of those who have had to move out of their homes (often losing the value of their home) due to living near a nuisance barking or a vicious dog and its unstable owners. Nor are you considering people and other animals who have been attacked or attacked and killed due to irresponsible dog owners who create vicious dogs.

Your unwillingness to have rules, regulations, and enforcement strikes me as suspicious and selfish. You should welcome rules and regulations to protect all of these abused and neglected dogs and cats. If you are doing the right thing then you shouldn't have much to worry about. If you own a small pack of dogs then giving up a few or moving to a rural more spacious area should not be too much to ask to protect the rights and lives of the community and dogs.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Pet Debates Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here