http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6139046.stm

At least 200 people have protested in the Chinese capital, Beijing, against restrictions on pet dog ownership.

Demonstrators holding stuffed toy animals said new rules limiting families in the capital to owning one small dog each were inhumane.

They said a ban on larger breeds would lead to dogs being confiscated and culled. In August, a mass cull of dogs caused uproar in south-west China.

The 'one dog' policy was announced as part of a campaign to combat rabies.

The protest was watched by many police, who demonstrators say detained 18 people.

One protester said the rule that pet dogs could be no taller than 35 cm was nonsense.

"We hope the world will support us in stopping the meaningless hurting and killing of dogs," she said, adding, "the height of a dog doesn't make them guilty or fierce!"

Rising wages have led to a boom in dog ownership, but high fees have meant most dogs are unregistered and unvaccinated.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42303000/jpg/_42303568_ap_protest_203credit.jpg

Ugh! Fascists!

I have to say, I don't see any problem with a "one dog only" rule, but maybe that's because I'm not really a doggie person.

One dog policy to combat rabies?

Wierd

In other news, the price of szechuan fell today....

How is this worse than the two-child policy?

I thought it was a one child policy?

Maybe it is. Anyhow, how is this worse than that?

Wow, even if you did have a dog:

The circular also forbids owners from taking their dogs to markets, shops, commercial areas, hotels, parks, public greens, schools, hospitals, exhibition halls, cinemas and theatres, gymnasiums, community gym zones, amusement parks, railway waiting rooms and sightseeing areas.
Cant even take it for a walk.


Edit:
I dont think its worse. Who said that?

In other news, the price of szechuan fell today....

and a huge bulk order was placed by the south korean HQ of mcdonalds.

At least 200 people have protested in the Chinese capital, Beijing, against restrictions on pet dog ownership.

Yeah, I suppose it's okay that 200 lousy people, out of the billions, should be allowed to set policy for the whole of China! ...LOL!

Can you just picture it ....any group of 200 people getting to set whatever governmental policy they want or demand? Wow, I'm sure I could get 200 people to demand that the US government provide us all with free pussy each week, huh? Wouldn't that be nice??? :)

Baron Max

What are you babbling on about Bax?

There are many places in the world where a one dog minimum would do wonders for civilization. Like the cesspools of fundie Islam and America's inner cities. Children grow up better with dogs. I think that is a much bigger problem.

Yeah, I suppose it's okay that 200 lousy people, out of the billions, should be allowed to set policy for the whole of China! ...LOL!

Reduce that number.............and you have the Chinese leadership!

baron max:
Yeah, I suppose it's okay that 200 lousy people, out of the billions, should be allowed to set policy for the whole of China!
tell me dipshit, how many people set the policy for amerikka?

fraggle:

Like the cesspools of fundie Islam .
really old duffer? explain this to me.

i think it would make more sense if they just made free(but mandatory)dog registration and subsidised de-sexing operations.


really old duffer? explain this to me.

in any fundamentalist society the people are taught nothing of other societies, just their own 'superiority'. pets are impartial to religion, and offer unconditional affection, so pet owners would realise that friendship can exist with people who do-not share their beleifs.

baron max: tell me dipshit, how many people set the policy for amerikka?

Well, it's a whole lot more than 200 people, that's for sure. The House of Representatives, the Senate, the Justice Department, and the Executive Branch. But in addition, of course, all of those people have been elected to represent all of the people of the USA. So, yeah, there's a big difference ....or can't you see it? Or don't you want to see it?

By the way, in case you missed it, there was an election held just this past Tuesday to elect officials in both houses of congress.

Baron Max

The tragic thing about this new law, is that any dog taller than 35 cm, will be outlawed, which means that hundreds of thousands if not millions of much loved pets will have to be put down...it's sick.

The tragic thing about this new law, is that any dog taller than 35 cm, will be outlawed, which means that hundreds of thousands if not millions of much loved pets will have to be put down...it's sick.

Well, yeah, sure. But look on the bright side of things ....they eat dogs in China, so the meat won't go to waste or anything bad like that!

Baron Max

50,000 dogs were clubbed to death in Southeast China in one county due to the death of nine people from rabies. This is what Samcdkey is referring to in his post. The rabies vaccine is not available to these rural regions. Therefore, the argument that is going on - not just in Western countries, but also within China - is "what is more important? The life of people or the life of dogs?" Do you understand the point-of-view?

Less than 5% of dog owners in China vaccinate their dogs for rabbies and any other diseases like we do in the West. But can they? If a farmer in a remote rural area, leaving at a subsistence level of poverty, needs to rely on his dogs to herd the sheep, then how can you expect him to afford to take his dogs to some veterinarian 100 miles away by bus - and you can't take dogs on public buses in China - to have it vaccinated?

A law such as this seems necessary in China so as to limit the owner's attention to just that one dog and to hopefully keep the owner's attention on how to properly care for it, vaccinate it, and protect the people there from further mass outbreaks of rabies. I think this is a good move by the government, considering the alternatives of having your beloved pet beaten to death by clubs as what happened in Hunan!

"what is more important? The life of people or the life of dogs?" Do you understand the point-of-view?

American's don't.

Obviously in china neither is particularly important. Killing off some people should be higher on their agenda than killing off dogs though.

i think it would make more sense if they just made free(but mandatory)dog registration and subsidised de-sexing operations.


in any fundamentalist society the people are taught nothing of other societies, just their own 'superiority'. pets are impartial to religion, and offer unconditional affection, so pet owners would realise that friendship can exist with people who do-not share their beleifs.

in any fundamentalist society the people are taught nothing of other societies, just their own 'superiority'
then amerika is the most fundamentalist society on the planet.

pets are impartial to religion
which religion? why do you equate the concepts of pets with religion? You're responding to fraggle's biassed, prejudiced and distorted view of islam.
"islamic fundie cesspool" is a completely subjective, distorted, speculative and nonsensical phrase which clearly shows his lack of understanding and which has no basis in anything but his fantasy thus using it in any kind of debate is invalid, and any inferences made from it are equally redundant.
the reasoning, and jursiprudence behind the fact that dogs are not encouraged to be kept by muslims has nothing to do with your subjective views on islam, and actually are based upon a line of reasoning, but you don't really care hence there's no point explaining it.

pets are impartial to religion, and offer unconditional affection, so pet owners would realise that friendship can exist with people who do-not share their beleifs.
absolute nonsense. The realisation that one can be friends with those who do not share their beliefs comes from an understanding of other people and other beliefs, and not from merely keeping pets

Baron: Yeah, I suppose it's okay that 200 lousy people, out of the billions, should be allowed to set policy for the whole of China! ...LOL!Can you just picture it ....any group of 200 people getting to set whatever governmental policy they want or demand? Wow, I'm sure I could get 200 people to demand that the US government provide us all with free pussy each week, huh? Wouldn't that be nice???

I must agree. 200 dog lovers in Beijing running around with stuffed dog-like animals isn't truly a nationwide 'protest'. I would also agree with Valich except for the irrational decision, on behalf of their government, that the dogs owned should be less than 35 centimeters in height. Why are small dogs less likely to contract rabies than large dogs? China is huge so I understand the limits dictated by the law but that doesn't mean that they have instituted new rules regarding the obligations of pet ownership and their vaccination policies to protect their human population from rabies.

I find it highly amusing that the country that has positioned a one child policy which has favored more males to females is now turning on dogs. Does sex matter when considering dogs? No. A dog is a dog in any society. Heehee!

fraggle: really old duffer? explain this to me.We're told that in the worst backwaters of the Islamic world people still hew to the ancient tabu that dogs, like pigs, are too dirty to be kept as pets, and can only be used as working stock.

This is a rejection a unique trait of our species, one of the three or four things that defines our humanity: The ability to form a multi-species community. I have often argued that if our tribal ancestors in the Mesolithic Era, who did not even trust other tribes, had not learned how to love "people" of a different species, we might never have made the leap of faith to form a community with people who look different, speak different languages and practice different religions. I submit that our bonding with dogs was a key step toward civilization.

Stone Age people's ignorance of microbiology makes it at least understandable that some primitive tribes were put off by the animals which they deliberately invited into their camps to clean up the garbage. But these days dogs get regular baths and medical exams, eat food that is almost indistinguishable from our own, and are no dirtier than our children. (If your dog eats stool it's because you're feeding him cheap food--or human food--full of preservatives that kills off the bacterial culture in his short intestinal tract.)

To evict dogs from civilization is to knock civilization about three steps back into the Stone Age. I believe that the interaction between humans and dogs is an important step in our maturation, because of the example dogs provide of unconditional trust, love and responsibility. I believe that children who grow up without this are missing an important lesson. The dismal, violent, intolerant state of society in our inner cities and in the primitive Muslim regions, where children do in fact grow up without dogs, supports this hypothesis.

I suspect that Pervez Musharraf agrees with me. He seems to be compulsive about being photographed with his little doggie. Perhaps he wants his people to know that it's cool to have one.

I am grateful that China will continue to allow its children to grow up in the presence of dogs. One per family is enough to do the job, even if my family has eleven.

I await no-dog policy.

The ability to form a multi-species community. If our tribal ancestors in the Mesolithic Era, who did not even trust other tribes, had not learned how to love "people" of a different species, we might never have made the leap of faith to form a community with people who look different, speak different languages and practice different religions. I submit that our bonding with dogs was a key step toward civilization.[QUOTE]

This is a very interesting thought for anthropology.


[QUOTE=Fraggle Rocker;1200117]These days dogs get regular baths and medical exams, eat food that is almost indistinguishable from our own, and are no dirtier than our children. To evict dogs from civilization is to knock civilization about three steps back into the Stone Age. I believe that the interaction between humans and dogs is an important step in our maturation.

This is only true in Western countries. When I had my boy Bram in China - my beloved Elkhound companion - I was often asked: "What do you get out of that?" They do not understand the bonding companionship and love that you can get from a dog. I would reply: "Well, What do you get out of your wife or girlfriend. Sure, if you are married you get children, and what else? I get the samething out of my dog as anyone would get out of their girlfriend." They would walk away shaking their heads.

About the Rabies issue. Americans need to and should be able to understand that China is a large country with about 1/4 of the Earth's population. Over 90% of Chinese are rural peasants. There is not enough Rabies vaccine available to go around to all these remote rural areas that have meager hospital care for humans. When 9 people die of rabies in a single county ("county" NOT country) that's a lot! And there is no cure available to them! So what do you do? We aren't seeing mass protests in the streets anywhere demanding that China be provided with more Rabies vaccine? And with less than 5% of the total population of China vaccinating their dogs (and I'm sure the percentage must be closer to near zero in the countryside), then how do you control Rabies outbreaks like this? And it's happening in many more counties and provinces that just that one county in remote Southwestern China. It's also in Hubei (Central China), an I've heard of a number of deaths from Rabies in Guangzhou (Southern China).

So, again, as is being debated on the internet forums in China right now, the argument is: "What is more important? the lives of the dogs or the lives of the people?"