Shanghaiist: Dog days in China

Zat

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:20:12 +0800

Bob, it seems you like to have the last word. I don't think you could define who I am, but you really think I'm an hypocritical and ignorant animal lover, think whatever you like, if this makes you feel better.

Bob Chippens

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:59:14 +0800

Liu, you're obviously someone who is learning to care more and more for animals, and China needs more people like you. But you are not quite the 'animal lover' you think you are. Good luck getting to the point where you can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with real animal lovers, rights activists and carers. This is my last post on the topic.

Zat Liu

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:18:24 +0800

"Of course not, that's a ridiculous analogy. Laws take a hell of a long time, balancing and negotiation to get into being, so any small step is a bonus. Of course you cannot write an article that covers everything in the issue of animal rights." Enough said. Can you point out which of my comments that reveals myself as not actually caring about certain other animals shitty lives and deaths, 'industry meat' in particular. Do the ends justify the (brutal) means in the issue of getting meat to our plates, Liu? No it doesn't, but please tell me what's on your mind that is not brutal for animals raised for industry meat, even the animals killed in food chain died in brutal means, should predators be prohibited to eat? You might also know the staff of zoos throw live animals, mostly chickens to predators to keep their wild nature, is this an act cold blood, ignorant and hypocritical, obviously the zoo staff is caring for one animal but disregard the chicken rights.

Bob Chippens

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:54:50 +0800

"Bob, name one animal law in this world that covers every single animal on this planet, please." We both know there isn't one (AFAIK). "Question: If such kind of law doesn't exist, so do all existing animal laws made out of hypocrisy and ignorance? Shall we just all shove them back to the people made them and point fingers at them for being hypocritical that just concerning certain animals but not the large scale of the animal rights?" Of course not, that's a ridiculous analogy. Laws take a hell of a long time, balancing and negotiation to get into being, so any small step is a bonus. I've said before, your article is good, raises awareness and is a good story. Of course you cannot write an article that covers everything in the issue of animal rights. But it's in your further comments that you reveal yourself as not actually caring about certain other animals shitty lives and deaths, 'industry meat' in particular. This to me stinks of double-standards from someone who got so angry about dogs being beaten to death. Can your empathy for animals only go at the same speed that laws are made protecting them, or the same speed that the rest of society is starting to stand up for animals or the same speed that nasty stories come out? "Truth is, it's a slow process in making, what's the result is going to be, I don't know. But I believe it will get better and better in the future. Just like the China dog incident, in the past no one cares, but at least people are standing up for their rights now." Agreed, and I hope so. In the past, no-one cared, now some people are standing up over this and other incidents. But, the same as my comment above, can people's empathy for animals only grow at the speed that laws are made, or the speed that nasty stories come out about particular animals? You apparently know the shitty lives and deaths that 'industry meat' has, yet you, self-proclaimed animal lover, cannot make the jump to also give a shit about them (even in your head, your further comments... I'm not talking about what you write and don't write in stories). "Oh, I find it strange that you accused me of a hypocritical animal lover just because I didn't mention those animals raised for industry meat in my story." No, I didn't, "just because I didn't mention those animals in my story", actually. Carefully read my comments again. It was your further comments that lead me to this, not your article. My first comment was a knee-jerk post - it disturbs me that cutesy dogs and cats will immediately get get this kind of care and attention because they are cutesy dogs and cats, while you-know-what is going on to get the meat to the plates, something that really never gets much/any attention even though it's on a huge scale. Still, it's a step in the right direction overall, hopefully. This all leads me back to my previous post: *"I really don't see how is protecting animal conflicts with eating meat". I agree, it wouldn't conflict if the 'industry meat' animals didn't have such a shitty life and death. Unfortunately, they do. The issue 'eating meat - right or wrong?' is different from the issue of 'how meat gets to our plates'. 'The ends justifies the means' is a dangerous road to take in any issue. Do the ends justify the (brutal) means in the issue of getting meat to our plates, Liu?* Can you answer this?

Zat

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:30:51 +0800

Bob, name one animal law in this world that covers every single animal on this planet, please. In the courtsey of your intelligence and knowledges, I'm just so ignorant that I really need someone to shed a light on this for me. Question: If such kind of law doesn't exist, so do all existing animal laws made out of hypocrisy and ignorance? Shall we just all shove them back to the people made them and point fingers at them for being hypocritical that just concerning certain animals but not the large scale of the animal rights? Truth is, it's a slow process in making, what's the result is going to be, I don't know. But I believe it will get better and better in the future. Just like the China dog incident, in the past no one cares, but at least people are standing up for their rights now. Oh, I find it strange that you accused me of a hypocritical animal lover just because I didn't mention those animals raised for industry meat in my story. How far you wanted it to go? It seems you are assigning task for everyone but shows little what you did.

Andre

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:55:27 +0800

".... not urinate wherever they please,..." as long as Chinese refuse to use diapers and let their babies shit and piss wherever they like including the metro, my dog can pee wherever he pleases!

nanheyangrouchuan

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:29:44 +0800

Bob, I'm starting to see your argument a little clearer than before, and I can relate. BUT, how much are you willing to pay for completely free range, organically fed animals? Organic meat in the US is several dollars to over $10 per pound, organically grown veggies aren't cheap either in most cases (unless the grower and supplier are located locally and not big national operators with CEO bonuses to meet). Also, throat slitting is actually a very humane way to kill animals, better than pumping a cow full of lead and safer than using deadly chemicals. Free range animals in China wouldn't be any cheaper and possibly more expensive as arable land is in such short supply. Life on a meat farm ain't no picnic, and most people stay away from stuff like pate because of the moral baggage, but meat is a necessity for humans so animals must be raised to die. They'd do the same if the roles were reversed.

Bob Chippens

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:02:23 +0800

"Latest news, Beijing pet lovers held a demonstration today at Beijing Zoo, heard there is clash with police but of course there is no media coverage." Well spotted, thanks for the links. :)

Bob Chippens

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:58:24 +0800

Liu: "I really don't see how is protecting animal conflicts with eating meat". I agree, it wouldn't conflict if the 'industry meat' animals didn't have such a shitty life and death. Unfortunately, they do. The issue 'eating meat - right or wrong?' is different from the issue of 'how meat gets to our plates'. 'The ends justifies the means' is a dangerous road to take in any issue. Do the ends justify the (brutal) means in the issue of getting meat to our plates, Liu? Alec: 1. Needless deaths - AGREED. See several of my previous comments agreeing that these are senseless and needless deaths. 2. Distraction - AGREED. Yes, there are bigger issues. In the same way, I see this story (obviously not intentionally) as a distraction, small pie compared to the more-or-less unknown story behind industry meat. I agree that highlighting this issue can and hopefully will raise all-round awareness of animal abuse. 3. Emotional bond - AGREED/DISAGREED. I've seen many organic farmers with bonds (usually one way as far as I could tell, but sometimes appearing two-way) with their animals (other than dogs, cats). But granted, dogs and cats do have more of a bond with humans, and humans have much more contact with dogs and cats compared to other animals. In my view, though, 'lack of emotional bond with humans' isn't reason enough to be OK with the horrible lives + death of 99% of animals reared for meat, while at the same time being so disturbed at dogs being clubbed to death. 4. Human travesty - AGREED/DISAGREE. See my comment about infringing on people's rights. Agree, it's mentally scarring. As far as 'the closest humans get', that's why I urge Liu, and anyone who hasn't done so before, to visit 'meat industry' farms and slaughterhouses. Experiencing the sight and sound of cows, chickens, lambs and pigs, etc. in continual distress should help build some bond or at least empathy with such 'non-companion animals'. We all know what pain feels like, right? The day that journalists are immune to disagreement and discussion of their writing would be a sad day. Write articles about whatever you want... your analogies almost fit, Alec, but are topsy-turvy. As close as I can get to an analogous article would be to emotionally highlight (adding great emphasis to this singular issue) and damn people's overuse of plastic bags... while at the same time neglect to mention far far bigger pollution issues (not the other way around, as you suggest)... and THEN going on to say (in further discussion), well, the far far bigger pollution issues aren't really important because they are a side-effect of a means to an end.... and THEN still proclaiming to be an environmentalist. The article is good, it's an interesting and disturbing story that I'm glad you wrote, Liu. Thank you! I suppose it just shocks me that our further discussion has shown that you can be so 'infuriated' at the brutal deaths of one animal, yet (apparently without ignorance of what really happens) not see a problem with the mass suffering (different from the issue of 'eating meat - right or wrong?') of other animals on a far far larger scale, and still proclaim to be an animal lover.

Zat

Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:14:15 +0800

Thanks Alec for standing by me. Latest news, Beijing pet lovers held a demonstration today at Beijing Zoo, heard there is clash with police but of course there is no media coverage. See pictures here http://sunlvlv.spaces.live.com/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c02_owner=1 and here http://photo.163.com/photos/zhao_gang/104800417/#p1

Nick

Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:54:01 +0800

Is China still backwards in this way? Well I think even the most patriotic of people would admit that there ARE a lot of members of the police using this as an excuse to kill dogs for fun. Also, it's not difficult to see that China always looks for quick easy cure rather than long complicated prevention. Is eating dog the same as eating a chicken? No. A dog can look you in the eye and can have a relationship with a man. Try having a relationship with a chicken, pig, cow, sheep (not in that way), snake, frog, etc. etc.. Some animals ARE beyond edibility. IF you do not think so, then you are backward - as you hold the opinion of a caveman. ps I don't care about how those edible animals are killed - I need to eat meat. I would of course prefer a quick and clean death - but my no. 1 priority is eating meat, not chicken welfare.

Alec

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:54:54 +0800

Read through what I just wrote with a clear mind, reflect for a moment, and then apologize to Zat. Be a man.

Alec

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:53:06 +0800

I mean, from your rationale I can't write an article about China or the United State's air pollution because I sometimes get plastic bags at the supermarket. I can't complain about the crazy streets here and the crappy driving because sometimes I'll dash across the road when the light is red and I'm in a hurry. I can't write about corruption in Shanghai because I once used some guanxi to get a late PSB temporary residency permit. And we can't write about the needless killing and regulation of pets because the meat industry in China is also deplorable. We are all hypocrites. (even you, I'd wager)

Alec

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:45:13 +0800

So let me get the gist of Bob's outrage: Zat reported that new regulations are being put into effect in Beijing (likely Shanghai later, hence the relevance) regarding dogs both stray and domestic. She expressed outrage over the narrow-mindedness of these regulations and how they negatively effect the dogs (ie, killed for no reason in many cases) and the people (these are their PETS) But Bob says because she failed to mention that ALL KINDS of animals, in both China and the world, are brutalized for various reasons, then she has no moral ground to stand on. Huh? She wrote an informative article about new regulations for pets, which many Shanghaiist readers have and therefore may be affected by, and expressed her dismay over their draconian new measures. And you jump down her throat about the meat industry and how if you don't take into that account you can't be upset about these new laws. If this was an article about China's slaughterhouse conditions then I'm sure Zat would have also expressed outrage. If this was an article about the fur industry I'm sure she would express outrage. The video you linked to - I believe Zat wrote a post about it months ago! (Or somebody did - good old Mary & Becker, where have you gone?) This was an article about one aspect of animal rights in China. Anyway, aside from all this you never answered Zat and my own points about: 1. Needless deaths (won't accomplish anything (at least in Shanghai-Beijing), not even providing food) 2. The fact that this is a distraction from real problems in the country 3. That cats and dogs develop emotional bonds with humans (yes, ducks will guard an area but they won't guard YOU) 4. That this is a travesty for those humans who keep them as pets and will be emotionally scarred. Horrible as conditions are in slaughterhouses, the closest humans get to them is eating at KFC or Mcdonalds. Bob, you made massive leaps to attack Zat for posting an informative article with a slight personal bias posted at the end - honestly I think you owe her an apology.

Zat Liu

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:36:27 +0800

Bob, can you read this part of my second reply again, please? I really don't see how is protecting animal conflicts with eating meat, human started killing animals for food since thousands years ago,it's part of the food chain and it's hard to change this habit.Human need meat for nutrition purpose.I don't think it's wrong that predators kill for eat.But abuse animals to death for no reason is just simply wrong. You have been accusing me for ignorantly being furious about pet animals horrible situation in China but showing indifference to animals raised for industry meat in all your response, which I've made myself clearly at the very beginning that I seperate companion animals and industry meat.After explained my point in detail, you are still bringing out the same question on and on. It starts to get boring. I'm also confused by your last reply: logic step to recognise the blatant fact that animal abuse and suffering is and has been going on all around us at a FAR FAR larger scale, and do something about it? It seems you think that Shanghaiist holds some sort of evil opinion to deny phenomenon of animal abuse? and what do you expect us to do? I must I write for this website to express my own opinon. If you think that you could do better raising awareness of ALL kinds of animal abuse and suffering, not just that of cutesy dogs in your judgemental post, be my guest. Isn't it just easy to point finger at others and say no?

Bob Chippens

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:53:23 +0800

I have much bigger ears 'to listen to others' than you might imagine, and I fully understand the bizarreness and senseless nature of these brutal killings that are also infringing on people's rights. It's the double-standards that really irk me and are fueling my posts. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be, I've spelled it out pretty simply and directly quoted whole sentences from your text and comments. The purpose of your sentence is taken from the words, is it not? There may be some language barrier issues here, please tell me where I have willfully twisted your words or sentences that I have quoted fully, and where my circular thinking is. If it is indeed the case, I'm glad that you are 'fully' aware of 'these phenomenon'. Now, would you agree that the next logical step is to recognise the blatent fact that animal abuse and suffering is and has been going on all around us at a FAR FAR larger scale, and do something about it? Will Shanghaiist and yourself (self-proclaimed "animal lovers") continue your stand against animal cruelty and now jump up and down in a similar indignant froth about the continued abuse and suffering of millions upon millions of animals during their twisted lives on the way to our plates? "And who can help the animals in China?", it says in the article. You might want to continue by raising awareness of ALL kinds of animal abuse and suffering, not just that of cutesy dogs. ;) (BTW, though the links contain horrible material, they are in context and are 100% not there with the sole purpose of offending you.)

Zat Liu

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:51:27 +0800

Bob, I really don't know how to reply to you, I read you are a circular thinker that couldn't listen to others, it also seems you like to quote out of text meanwhile disregarding the purpose of the whole sentence. As the links posted in your comments, thanks but I won't click them. I'm very aware of these phenomenon but it seems you are just using those to offend me in the arguement, I really don't know what gets you now.

Bob Chippens

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:15:35 +0800

OK, one final one. A little bit about dog and cat meat arriving on plates in your very own China. How does it get there, Liu, I wonder.... A very one-sided shock-tactic video, but 'interesting' nontheless. If you dont like the idea of looking into the eyes of dogs and cats being skinned alive, don't watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=vfHnGc1WeQs

Bob Chippens

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:52:36 +0800

...by the way, Liu, there are organic farms whereby the animals that are going to be used for meat are treated much much better during their lives, and are really cared for by the farmer. I've worked on a few of these. There is an organisation called WWOOF (Willing Workers On Organic Farms) that you can join and then go and volunteer to work on these farms for a short time. The organisation is big in New Zealand (go if you have a chance!), and I believe there are also some WWOOF farms in China, though I'm not sure where. Check out the WWOOF website at http://www.wwoof.org/ Good luck ;)

Bob Chippins

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:45:06 +0800

Liu, I'll underline it for you again, as plainly as I can, refering back to your own words. Hypocrisy: "I don't see there is conflict between that I pay sympathy for companion animals and industry meat in use." But in the very next sentence you say: "But abuse the animal and make it suffer to death is a serious matter, don't you agree?" A double-standard - abusing animals and making it suffer to death HAPPENS WITH ALMOST ALL THE MEAT THAT ARRIVES ON OUR PLATES... yet you also say, "I really don't see how is protecting animal conflicts with eating meat"!! ***The process of getting the meat to our plates usually involves abuse and 'suffer to death' of animals!*** Ignorance: The ignorance lies in your seeming lack of understanding of the full process of how meat gets to our plates, and the mass suffering and mass abuse of animals in this process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=gZpt3DfejRA You say you are turning veggie, good on you. You may also want to check out where your eggs come from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9y1ZJxcu4 ***Do you know the full scale of the shit animals go through to arrive on our plates? I thought not. Hence, ignorance.*** I recommend you go and spend some times on meat-production farms and visit a few slaughterhouses. Really.

Zat Liu

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:40:32 +0800

Bob,I have no idea what hypocrisy and ignorance you see in my post.I see you are missing my whole point but trying to split hairs. Anyways, I do hope you stop twisting my words and stop trying to change concept in your arguement first. Alec pretty much said it all, but still I would like to add a few more why it's a senseless and stupid policy. 1. I really don't see how is protecting animal conflicts with eating meat, human started killing animals for food since thousands years ago,it's part of the food chain and it's hard to change this habit.Human need meat for nutrition purpose.I don't think it's wrong that predators kill for eat.But abuse animals to death for no reason is just simply wrong. Club the dogs to death because the government didn't get control of the pet market, and because a number of pet owners and breeders didn't behave themselves is just utterly stupid and cold-blooded to me. 2.Finding rabies as an excuse to killing all dogs and cats is just another ridiculous reaction, do you have any idea how much dog owners pay for the license each year in China? Where exactly did the money go? How about use the money on promoting proper raise of pet animals and get them vaccinated? 3. How do you think the kids growing up in a country that a pet dog can be dragged out of a home and clubbed brutally to death on the street? What kind of the image the government is trying to draw for itself?

nanheyangrouchuan

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:49:47 +0800

@usagi Sex is a touchy subject for everyone, but I really doubt that you want to compare the level of sex education in the US or any western country with the level in China. Who doesn't run a tight ship? Haven't spent much time in a western country have you? Whenever you squeeze something, you reach a point where it cannot be squeezed any further, then it either hardens or disintegrates. Need time? Always an excuse, China has had thousands of years, time is just a way to create a delay.

usagi

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:18:48 +0800

China isn't the only country has a hard time educating people about sex or STDs. for example, the US. every state has its different laws regarding sex ed. yes, they do have a very tight fist, however, who doesnt run a tight ship? yet, on the other hand, i am not saying what they are doing is right. they need time.

nanheyangrouchuan

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 23:22:23 +0800

@Chippens: My comments are in fact completely opposing your point about "cruelty". In order for us to live, we must kill and eat other creatures. Maybe you'd feel better about a bacteria omlet? @usagi: China's biggest problem is that the rulers, except the Tang, have kept blinders on chinese society as a whole through force. Keep 'em dumb and they are easier to rule, the problem with that is that society cannot openly express its unhappiness about the society or government. The fact that the chinese population is so unknowledgeable about sex or STDs yet has a manned space program is nothing short of shameful and self-destructive. China ought to know better, even more than the US.

usagi

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 23:18:13 +0800

@ Alec chickens ? hmm, dont remember if they could, but ducks and geese could watch your house, just like dogs do, did you know that ? speaking from personal experiences! if that is your way of justifying how killing CERTAIN animals are ok, then you are mistaken. on this point, i do have to agree with nan, ha, you probably never saw this coming. in order to survive, we will have to consume something. and we certainly can not consume minerals for life, although we do need small quantities for our chemically designed body, however, we have to take something, and plants are certainly alive, and you think they do not have feelings? their ways of expression may not be something you can conprehend, but they certainly can feel.

usagi

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 23:03:13 +0800

yes, i do agree dragging peoples' pets out and kill them is a little over reacting. but dont any of you agree that if anyone owns a pet, shouldn't they be held responsible for what their pets do ? China currently does not have a PERFECT law and order system, some desperate measures should be attempted. which sucks, but we all have to face the fact. @nan yes, China does brag about its 5000 year history, which we all know, but what you also have to taken into consideration is that China has also gone through a lot of conflicts, the so called 'face' has already lost its originality, in order to re-define it will take generations, especially after the culture revelotion, the entire chinese culture has been changed, including its people. if you only had the slightest idea about what the horrifying 10 years were about, then perhaps you would understand why China and its people are where they are today.

Bob Chippens

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:22:16 +0800

"So get off your high horse." - that's the most hypocritical statement of all from the one and only nanheyangrouchuyan!! Hahahahah, unbelievable! Besides, you're so completely and utterly missing my point, it's laughable.

nanheyangrouchuan

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:57:22 +0800

@usagi China has had 5000 years of continuous culture to get its act straight and still can't get it done. Maybe if chinese culture wasn't so addicted to "face" and "wealth" at all costs? @Chippens: Research shows that plants and rudimentary nervous systems, plants with leaves can curl their leaves when high moisture is present in the air. Some flowers open and close with the presence of sunlight and how about Venus Flytraps? What I am saying is that killling a plant may be just as "cruel" as killing an animal, and eating fruit (including beans) is eating a plant fetus. So get off your high horse. Everything on this earth survives by eating something else and usually that something else is alive.

Bob Chippens

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:01:03 +0800

Far from undercutting my 'diatribe' (lol), Liu going veggie has little to do with her apparent (*from her writing and comments*) ignorance of how animals are treated leading up to them arriving on our plates, and hypocrisy of it being a "horrible slaughter" to mass murder one type of animal, yet it being perfectly fine to mass slaughter at a 1000000x scale other animals, using equally brutal methods. Shouldn't all animals be afforded the same protection? Fuck 'bonds' and 'companionship', killing is killing. As long as the killing is out of sight and the animal is not emotionally close to you, it's ok? The policy of running into peoples homes and clubbing their dogs is of course fucking mental for numerous reasons, a few of which you stated yourself. It's the hypocrisy and ignorance that gets me.

Alec

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 13:22:54 +0800

@Bob - first, Zat said she is going vegetarian, which essentially undercuts your diatribe. But aside from that: 1. Dogs (and cats) have spent thousands of years evolving into 'companion' animals. If you've ever had a cat or a dog, who must realize that a bond develops between you and the animal - it can read your emotions, and vise versa. Dogs adopt you as part of their family and will defend you to the death. I've raised chickens and let me tell you it is completely different. They cannot read your emotions. They have no loyalty to you. Chickens and dogs are very, very different animals. Perhaps pigs are more like dogs - I don't know, I haven't raised them. But drawing comparisons between dogs and crabs or chickens is ridiculous. 2. These are people's PETS we are talking about being dragged out of homes and killed. If someone had a pet pig they had invested love and energy into and someone burst into their house and carted it away to be turned into sausages I would also be outraged. We are talking about not just the deaths of the animals but also the emotional heartache felt by those (especially children) who consider these pets as part of their families. 3. The slaughter is SENSELESS. If a hunter goes into the forest and shoots a deer, takes it home and eats it, then fine, I have no problem with this. But if the hunter leaves the carcass out in the woods then my blood begins to boil. Killing an animal for a purpose - well, that's nature. Killing an animal because some government officials decided a rabies scare is a good distraction from the real problems - well, that's bullshit. How many rabies deaths have happened within the boundaries of Beijing according to that article? 0. 0. 0. 0.

Bob Chippens

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:48:42 +0800

Well Liu, there's a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to stuff like this. "Eating dog?! Never, that's so cruel and disgusting!", most waiguoren cry at this southern Chinese practice, while happily munching on chicken, beef, pork, .... "1. This is an issue that pet animals or those use to be pets are killed for stupid policy." What difference does it make that they are a pet? You have no sympathy for animals other than pets? Which is it, killing animals is "horrible", or it isn't? Or is it only horrible "slaughter" when the policy is clubbing them to death rather than the policy of cutting their heads off or slitting their throats or letting them peck and scratch each other to death in tiny cages, or the crabs that are stacked one on top of each other, waiting in vain to at last be boiled alive! Have you ever visited a standard mass-production meat farm or a slaughter-house? "But abuse the animal and make it suffer to death is a serious matter, don't you agree?" I think you see I do agree, but you either have no fucking concept of how the meat/fish gets to your plate, or you dont give a shit. (In the case of fish, crabs, snake, frog, etc, how can you not know when the restaurant lets you choose from a fish tank or a bucket which ones you want to eat? You personally sign it's death sentence.) Wake Up Liu!

usagi

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 05:31:52 +0800

@nan every country which experiencing or has experienced social reform and industrial reveloution has all gone through enviromental problem. China is doomed FOREVER, and there is no way to change the inevitable, since that is YOUR point, then why can't you shut up about it ? out of the kindness of your heart, i dont think so.

nanheyangrouchuan

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:42:35 +0800

This about the PSB being allowed to flex its muscle on the general public in the name of "public safety". IE, we can kick down your door and pound your pet to death because we can and there is nothing you can do about it (like complain to the government or about the government).

nanheyangrouchuan

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:42:35 +0800

Bliss

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:53:56 +0800

http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/188303.htm In parts of Beijing, how can somebody who already owns a dog that is taller than 35 cm at the shoulder not walk their dog? Or are they really going to be fined RMB 2000 every time a police officer sees them outside with their dog on a leash? And what about people who already have two dogs? Are they really supposed to have to pay fines worth up to RMB 10,000? What do authorities really think is going to happen it they're expecting to get rid of a dog? Has it ever occurred to the geniuses coming up with some of these regulations on dogs that more dogs will be dumped as a result of impossible restrictions and extremely high fines? What about realistic and enforceable (and effective) regulations like putting all dogs on leashes?

Zat Liu

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:38:02 +0800

Biased, are you horrified more than 20,000 people died in China due to car accidents, should we all stop walking on the street or using the cars? It's human's mistake to bring the dogs in the city, bread on human's will,sell them for money or eat their meat.Now you tell me, why is that they have to suffer to death because some doesn't take the responsbility as a pet owner? Bob Chippens, please, spare me with the bullshit with industry meat and animal rights. 1. This is an issue that pet animals or those use to be pets are killed for stupid policy. 2. I don't see there is conflict between that I pay sympathy for companion animals and industry meat in use.But abuse the animal and make it suffer to death is a serious matter, don't you agree? My last note to you is I'm actually turning into a veggie.

Alec

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:49:21 +0800

@Biased - how many people die from rabies in Beijing or Shanghai? Out in the province, where more dogs roam free, then sure, I could see having a rabies prevention program. But dragging people's pets out of their houses to be beaten to death in major cities like Beijing and Shanghai is ridiculous. 2000 people dead a year? As reported in the China Daily, 300 people a day are killed on the road in China. That's over a 100,000 people a year. Maybe the traffic situation needs to be addressed. The government is making a huge stink out of this to create a scapegoat, to create a culture of fear to focus people's attention away from the real problems. Believe me, I've seen it before - America invented this technique. It works on us, in a free society (SARS, Mad Cow, Avian Flu, Iraq), here it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Go ahead, feel furious. The government has done a good job.

nanheyangrouchuan

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:40:13 +0800

Speaking of taking care of the people, how's that pollution coming along? Social safety net? Enforcing uniform labor laws?

usagi

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:06:26 +0800

China should probably focus on take care of their people first before 'their' dogs. but nanheyangrouchuan, it's not like your bad mouthing is going to do any of them any good...... :D

Bob Chippens

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:40:19 +0800

Zat Liu, you're obviously also horrified about the daily MASS slaughter of animals that occurs every day in every country in the world, the meat that ends up on our plates?

nanheyangrouchuan

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:30:18 +0800

Yes, it is all the fault of the dogs. Maybe the dog owners could take a little more personal responsibility (not a widely accepted practice in China) and keep the dogs under control so they don't encounter rat infested areas. Also, there are vaccination programs in place in many large cities in China, but then again most people are too cheap to get their dog vaccinated. Also, dog behavior is typically the result of how the owner handles them. backward little china.

Biased

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:57:01 +0800

You feel furious at all the pictures of dogs beaten to death. I feel furious at more than 2000 people dead from rabbies a year in China. And have you seen a picture of a little girl killed by a dog in Shanxi? Why did you mention those in your report? Full of shits!

usagi

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:27:54 +0800

guess that's all you guys see then

nanheyangrouchuan

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:46:13 +0800

Bad, dirty, uncivilized China.

Alec

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:37:20 +0800

Are stray / loose dogs a big problem in Shanghai? Certainly not around where I live (French Concession). The outskirts, maybe? I don't get it. With the myriad social problems confronting China THIS is what the police decide to crack down upon? Tell you what, how about a little effort is put into enforcing the traffic laws? I betcha a hell of a lot more people die because of blatant disregard for simple road rules than are killed by rabies. Forget the dogs, how about getting children / adults to stop pissing and defecating in public? Oh, and for a funny story about a foreigner taking the rules of the road into her own hands, check out this: http://www.talktalkchina.com/