with partnership

1
© Cover photo by
Roy del Vecchio, http://www.roydelvecchio.com/
2
INDEX
Alexander Wandeler
Kate Blaszak
The role of dog population
management in the
prevention and control of
rabies
Worldwide summary on
policy and legislation for dog
population management
Malika Kachani
Alexandra Hammond Seaman
Dog population
management: cost benefit of
interventions
10
Bruno Chomel
Dog population modeling.
Literature review
The role of Dog Population
Management in the
Prevention and Control Of
Zoonosi Diseases
26
Responsible dog ownership
options
78
Rita de Cassia Maria Garcia
32
Dog catching, handling and
removal
Dganit Ben-Dov
Tracy Helman
Shelter Management. A
review of the situation
worldwide
Communication, awareness
building, education.
Capacity building of
professionals in Dog
Population Management
38
Jack Reece
Alternative methods of
sterilisation
69
Peter Omemo
Chinny Krishna
The Success of the ABC
Programme in India
57
4
85
92
45
James Serpell
Human-Dog Relationships
Worldwide
49
3
Alexander Wandeler
THE ROLE OF DOG POPULATION
MANAGEMENT IN THE PREVENTION
AND CONTROL OF RABIES
4
Introduction
The association of dog
populations and the occurrence of rabies
in these populations is intricate and cannot
be understood without considering the
complexity of human command/influence
on dogs, and also the possible presence of
rabies in wildlife species in the area. We can
distinguish between regions where rabies
is predominantly a wildlife disease and
regions where dog populations maintain the
zoonosis. Population management is essential
in controlling rabies in its principal hosts. It
consists in diminishing population densities,
slowing down the population turnover, and
reducing infectious contacts. In the following
I consider the creation of herd immunity as a
part of these strategies.
Comments to the epidemiology of rabies. A suscep-
tible animal or human may become infected
with rabies when virus laden saliva is injected
into its tissues by a bite from a rabid animal.
Other transmission mechanisms are uncommon. The virus cannot penetrate intact skin,
but may enter mucosal surfaces. Rabies has a
peculiar pathogenesis that is characterized by
virus dissemination within nerve fibers rather
than by blood and lymph, by rapid expansion
of the infection within the central nervous
system (CNS) after a variable, but generally
several weeks long incubation period, by virus
excretion with saliva (VAUGHN et al. 1965)
only toward the end of the incubation, and by
the almost invariably fatal outcome.
Rabies is a zoonosis. Perhaps it would be
better to say: Rabies are zoonoses maintained
by a number of different mammalian hosts.
Different species of the orders Carnivora
and Chiroptera (bats) support independent
epizootic cycles of different rabies virus
variants. A particular species may serve as
a principal host only in a limited part of its
geographical distribution. The disease is
transmitted regularly to a number of other
mammalian species in addition to the species
recognized as the principal host. Adaptation
of a particular virus strain to its principal host
is indicated by the frequency and magnitude
of its excretion on one hand and by the host’s
high susceptibility to it on the other hand.
These properties allow for transmission
from an infective to a susceptible individual
in the event of a biting incident. However,
susceptibility, disease induced aggressiveness,
and virus excretion are insufficient attributes
for insuring a prolonged persistence of
the virus in a host population. Encounters
between infective and susceptible individuals
leading to transmission must occur at
the correct frequency to match the host’s
population structure and biology (BACON
1985, WANDELER 1991, WANDELER et al.
1994). For more information on dog rabies
epidemiology see ACHA and ARAMBULO
1985, BAER and WANDELER 1987, BERAN
1991, BINGHAM et al. 1999, ENG et al. 1993,
FEKADU 1991, HAMPSON et al. 2009, TIERKEL
1975, WALTNER-TOEWS et al. 1990, WANDELER
et al. 1993.
Taking the above information into
consideration it appears that we have a fair
number of avenues to impact the presence of
rabies in dog populations.
Comments on dog populations. Dogs are generally
closely associated with humans, depending
on the resources they provide intentionally
and unintentionally. The degree of supervision that is exerted on dogs varies greatly in
different cultures, and is frequently unevenly
applied. Dog population turnover can be
rapid; however the age distribution indicates
frequently a rather slow turnover even in
areas with no reproduction control. Yet, dog
populations certainly have the potential of rapid recovery. Dog to human ratios vary widely,
5
frequently being somewhere between 1 in 10
and 1 in 20. Population densities can exceed
1000 individuals per km2. These are densities
that are significantly higher than recorded
for any wild carnivore rabies host and they
pose particular challenges for effective rabies
control (WANDELER et al. 1988).
Rabies control and dog population management
Prevention of dog rabies in areas with wildlife rabies.
Different rabies virus variants circulate in
populations of different small carnivores
(foxes, jackals, skunks, mongooses, raccoons,
and others) in different parts of the World.
The disease is frequently transmitted by wild
carnivores to susceptible domestic animals.
Different virus variants and rabies related
viruses infect different species of bats. The
transmission of these viruses to domestic
animals and humans is also possible, though a
bit less frequent, except in areas with vampire
bats.
Dogs are susceptible to wildlife rabies viruses
and can transmit the disease when they become ill (TABEL et al. 1974, STECK and WANDELER 1980, VAUGHN et al. 1965). Today in many
nations with predominant wildlife rabies,
strict dog supervision is enforced and dog
vaccination is recommended or compulsory.
Owners have to register (obtain a license)
dogs. Registration can be made dependent on
the production of a certificate that the animal
has been vaccinated against rabies when over
3 months old and had been revaccinated at
periods of not more than 1 or 2 years. Vaccinations should be done by parenteral inoculation of a product recognized by the National
Authorities, usually an inactivated vaccine
conferring two years of immunity after one
injection.
Rabies control in areas with canine rabies. Dog
rabies disappeared from many regions of Eu-
6
rope and North America at the beginning of
the 20th century before dog vaccination was
widely practised. It may be speculated that
the strict enforcement of legislation pertaining to dog keeping has assisted the disappearance of dog rabies viruses. Later, successful attempts at the control of rabies have
generally occurred where both vaccination
and dog control (destruction, confinement,
breeding restrictions) have been practised
simultaneously (BELCHER et al. 1976, BERAN
et al. 1972, BERAN 1982, FREDRICKSON et al.
1953, GLOSSER et al. 1970, LARGHI et al. 1988,
TIERKEL et al. 1950).
Rabies still has a high incidence in dogs in
areas where dog populations reach high
densities and where the animals are poorly supervised (TURNER 1976, WHO 2004, ACHA and
ARAMBULO 1985, BLANCOU 1988). Attempts
to reduce dog numbers and to educate
owners toward responsible ownership should
therefore be attempted. For this purpose the
WHO/WSPA “Guidelines for Dog Population
Management” (WHO/Zoon/90.165) should be
consulted. Recommended control measures
include movement restrictions, reproduction
control, habitat control, and removal of unsupervised dogs.
The control of movements by enforcing leash
laws and restricting dogs to their owner’s property is intended to limit social contacts and
access to resources (both leading to disease
transmission and uncontrolled reproduc-
tion). Reproduction control may be achieved
through mating restrictions, surgical sterilization, and drugs (injectable, oral). Animal Birth
Control (ABC) programs in combination with
parenteral vaccination have shown promising
results when applied with high intensity over
relatively large areas (TOTTON et al. 2010a,
2010b, 2011). It must be emphasized that
sterilization programs can be counterproductive if not applied properly and with sufficient
intensity.
Habitat control is meant to reduce the availability of resources (litter, waste, shelter).
The concept of responsible dog ownership
as applied in industrialized Western Nations
needs to be adapted to different contexts,
taking into account economic, social and
cultural constraints. The removal of straying
dogs usually has only insignificant effects on
population densities and is therefore not a
productive method of population control, but
it may serve law enforcement and is an aid to
education in responsible ownership in areas
such concepts are easily understood.
For planning a comprehensive control program it is necessary to consider a number of
dog population parameters (size, turnover,
accessibility). A vaccination coverage of
about 75% of the total population should be
attempted. The 75% threshold was effective in
places where dog movement restrictions and
dog supervision was imposed simultaneously
(BERAN 1982, COLEMAN and DYE 1996,
GLOSSER et al. 1970, KORNS and ZEISSIG 1948,
WELLS 1954). Higher levels of herd immunity
may be required in high density populations
of poorly supervised dogs. The goal of high
vaccination coverage should be achieved in
a particular area within a relatively short time
period (a few weeks). Pilot projects may help
in assessing (1) dog accessibility, (2) ways of
cooperating with local residents, and (3) avenues to provide information and education.
Plans for large scale operations, vaccination
strategies and logistic aspects can then be
adjusted according to findings in the pilot
phase. An effective maintenance program
must be part of the plan. Operational research
for monitoring campaign efficiency is strongly
recommended.
A number of different approaches can be
taken. Firstly, dog owners may take their pets
to private or state veterinarians for vaccination. This is the most important way in which
population immunity is achieved in the more
affluent parts of the world, whereas it only
accounts for a small proportion of vaccinations in less wealthy countries where there
are few veterinarians within communities or
where the cost of a veterinary consultation is
too expensive for many people. Secondly the
state veterinary services may conduct campaigns of which the most common is the central
point campaign where owners are required
to bring their pets to a designated place at
a particular time. Such campaigns require
a considerable amount of prior advertising.
Because of this and also because dog owners
often have other priorities, or they may not be
able to take all their dogs to the central point,
this method usually does not reach more than
10% to 40% of dogs, but can be much better if
properly implemented. A third method of population immunisation is the house-to-house
vaccination campaign, where the state vaccination teams visit each household and vaccinate every dog which they are able to catch.
The latter method, although very demanding
of resources, is usually successful in achieving
the 70% coverage thought to be necessary
to eradicate dog rabies. In many African and
Asian countries it is not used extensively because due to resource constraints.
Rabies control in areas with canine rabies is
usually not a simple application of regulations
on dog ownership. Their enforcement is impeded by a number of ecological and cultural
constraints. But well planned and executed
campaigns may reduce rabies incidence in
dogs drastically and may even eliminate the
disease in areas where it is not maintained
by wildlife. Taking the cost and benefits of a
campaign into consideration, we suggest that
disease eradication should be the goal rather
than a temporary reduction of the incidence
rate. Comprehensive national, rather than
temporary, local plans are imperative. These
plans have to identify a goal, and they have to
consider national structures and resources. Effective cooperation among all involved ministries and national and local agencies is necessary.
7
References
1. ACHA, P.N., and ARAMBULO III, P.V.
(1985) Rabies in the Tropics - History and
Current Status. In KUWERT, E., MÉRIEUX,
C., KOPROWSKI, H., and BÖGEL, K. (eds.)
Rabies in the Tropics. Berlin, SpringerVerlag, pp.343-359.
2. BACON, P.J., (1985) A Systems Analysis of
Wildlife Rabies Epizootics. In BACON, P.J.
(ed) Population Dynamics of Rabies in
Wildlife. London, Academic Press, pp.109130.
3. BAER, G.M., and WANDELER, A.I. (1987)
Rabies Virus. In Appel, Max J. (ed.) Virus
Infections of Carnivores. Amsterdam,
Elsevier Science Publishers, pp.167-182.
4. BELCHER, D.W., WURAPA, F.K., ATUORA,
D.O.C. (1976) Endemic rabies in Ghana.
Epidemiology and control measures. Amer.
J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 25: 724-729.
5. BERAN, G.W. (1982) Ecology of dogs in the
central Philippines in relation to rabies
control efforts. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol.
Infect. Dis., 5: 265-270.
6. BERAN, G.W. (1991) Urban rabies. In BAER,
G.M (ed.) The Natural History of Rabies,
2nd Edition. Boca Raton, CRC Press, pp.
427-443.
9. BINGHAM, J., FOGGIN, C.M., WANDELER,
A.I., and HILL, F.W.G. (1999) The
epidemiology of rabies in Zimbabwe.
1. Rabies in dogs (Canis familiaris). 2.
Rabies in jackals (Canis adustus and Canis
mesomelas). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res., 66:
1-10 & 11-23.
10.BLANCOU, J. (1988) Epizootiology of
rabies: Eurasia and Africa. In CAMPBELL,
J.B., and CHARLTON, K.M. (eds.) Rabies.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp.
243-265.
11.COLEMAN, P.G., and DYE, C. (1996)
Immunization coverage required to
prevent outbreaks of dog rabies. Vaccine
14:185 186.
12.ENG TR, FISHBEIN DB, TALAMANTE HE,
HALL DB, CHAVEZ GF, DOBBINS JG, MURO
FJ, BUSTOS JL, DE LOS ANGELES RICARDY
M, MUNGUIA A, et al. (1993) Urban
epizootic rabies in Mexico – Epidemiology
and impact of animal bite injuries. Bull
WHO 71: 615-614.
13.FEKADU, M. (1991) Canine rabies. In BAER,
G.M (ed.) The Natural History of Rabies,
2nd Edition. Boca Raton, CRC Press, pp. 367
387.
7. Ortega-Pacheco, A et al. (2007) A survey of
Dog Populations in Urban and Rural Areas
of Yucatan, Mexico. Anthrozoos volume
20(3)
14.FREDRICKSON, L.E., WILLETT, J.C.,
SMITH, J.E. and PRICE, E.R. (1953) Mass
immunisation of dogs against rabies. Its
influence on a rabies epizootic in St.Louis.
Amer. J. Publ. Hlth., 43: 399-404.
8. BERAN, G.W., NOCETE, A.P., ELVINA, O.,
GREGORIO, S.B., MORENO, R.R., NAKAO,
J.C., BURCHETT, G.A., CANIZARES, H.L., and
MACASAET, F.F. (1972) Epidemiology and control
studies on rabies in the Philippines. Southeast
Asian J. Trop. Med. Pub. Hlth., 3: 433-445.
15.GLOSSER, J.W., HUTCHINSON, L.R., RICH,
A.B., HUFFAKER, R.H., and PARKER, R.L.
(1970) Rabies in El Paso, Texas, before and
after institution of a new rabies control
program. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 157: 820825.
8
16.HAMPSON, K., DUSHOFF, J., CLEAVELAND,
S., HAYDON, D.T., MAGAI, K., PACKER, C. and
DOBSON, A. (2009) Transmission Dynamics
and Prospects for the Elimination of Canine
Rabies. PLoS Biology 7
17.KORNS, R.F., and ZEISSIG, A. (1948) Dog, fox,
and cattle rabies in New York State. Am. J.
Publ. Hlth., 38: 50-65
18.LARGHI, O.P., ARROSI, J.C., NAKAJATA A, J.,
and VILLA NOVA, A. (1988) Control of urban
rabies. In CAMPBELL, J.B., and CHARLTON,
K.M. (eds.) Rabies. Boston, Kluwer, pp. 407
422.
19.STECK, F., and WANDELER, A. (1980) The
epidemiology of fox rabies in Europe.
Epidem. Revs., 2: 71-96.
20.TABEL, H., CORNER, A.H., WEBSTER, W.A., and
CASEY, G.A. (1974) History and epizootiology
of rabies in Canada. Can. Vet. J., 15: 271-281.
21.TIERKEL, E., GROVES, L., TUGGLE, H. and
WADLEY, S. (1950) Effective control of an
outbreak of rabies in Memphis and Shelby
County, Tennessee. Am. J. Publ. Hlth., 40:
1084-1088.
22.TIERKEL, E.S. (1975) Canine rabies. In BAER,
G.M. (ed.) The Natural History of Rabies. New
York, Acad. Press, pp.123-137.
23.TOTTON, S.C., WANDELER, A.I., RIBBLE, C.S.,
ROSATTE, R.C., and McEWEN, S.A. (2011)
Stray dog population health in Jodhpur,
India in the wake of an animal birth control
(ABC) program. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine 98(2-3): 215-220.
24.TOTTON, S.C., WANDELER, A.I., ZINSSTAG, J.,
BAUCH, C.T., RIBBLE, C.S., ROSATTE, R.C. and
McEWEN, S.A. (2010) Stray dog population
demographics in Jodhpur, India following
a population control/rabies vaccination
program. Preventive Veterinary Medicine.
97(1): 51-57.
25.TOTTON, S.C., WANDELER, A.I., GARTLEY,
C.J., KACHHAWAHA, S., SUMAN, M., RIBBLE
C.S., ROSATTE, R.C., McEWEN, S.A. (2010)
Assessing reproductive patterns and
disorders in free-ranging dogs in Jodhpur,
India to optimize a population control
program. Theriogenology 74(7): 1115-1120.
26.TURNER, G.S. (1976) A review of the world
epidemiology of rabies. Trans. Roy. Soc. Trop.
Med. Hyg., 70: 175-178.
27.VAUGHN, J.B., GERHARDT, P., and NEWELL,
K.W. (1965) Excretion of street rabies virus in
the saliva of dogs. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 193:
363-368.
28.WALTNER-TOEWS, D., MARYONO, A., AKOSO,
B.T., WISYNU, S., and UNRUH, D.H.A. (1990)
An epidemic of canine rabies in Central Java,
Indonesia. Preventive Vet. Med., 8: 295-303.
29.WANDELER, A.I. (1991) Carnivore rabies:
ecological and evolutionary aspects. Hystrix,
n.s.3, 121-135.
30.WANDELER, A.I., BUDDE, A., CAPT, S.,
KAPPELER, A., and MATTER, H. (1988) Dog
ecology and dog rabies control. Rev.Infect.
Dis. 10, Supplement 4: S684-S688.
31.WANDELER, A.I., MATTER, H.C., KAPPELER, A.
and BUDDE, A. (1993) The ecology of dogs
and canine rabies: a selective review. Rev.
Scient. Tech. O.I.E.., 12: 51-71.
32.WANDELER, A.I., NADIN-DAVIS, S.A.,
TINLINE, R.R., and RUPPRECHT, C.E. (1994)
Rabies epidemiology: some ecological and
evolutionary perspectives. In RUPPRECHT,
C.E., DIETZSCHOLD, B., and KOPROWSKI,
H., (eds.): Lyssaviruses. Current Topics
in Microbiology and Immunology, 187.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 297-324.
33.WELLS, C.W. (1954) The control of rabies
in Malaya through compulsory mass
vaccination of dogs. Bull. WHO, 10: 731-742.
34.WHO (2004) Expert consultation on rabies.
First report. WHO, Geneva
35.WHO/WSPA (1990) Guidelines for
Dog Population Management (WHO/
Zoon/90.165). Geneva, WHO.
9
Alexandra Hammond Seaman
DOG POPULATION
MANAGEMENT
Cost benefit of interventions
10
Summary
The aim of this paper is
to look at the options for dog population
management and cost benefit of
interventions. There are already a number
of guidelines and recommendations in place
detailing the intervention tools and options.
In 2009 the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code
agreed guidelines on the Control of Stray Dog
Populations1. Many national governments
have further legislation in place regulating
the management of stray dog populations,
provision of animal collection services,
management of animal establishments,
mandatory identification and registration, and
dog control laws.
The FAO E-consultation in 2010 whose
objective was to review the current state of
knowledge on dog population management
(DPM) unveiled a vast pool of knowledge
and expertise on the subject worldwide. The
consultation also identified important gaps in
knowledge and factors that are linked to the
persistence of uncontrolled dog populations
such as inadequate government policies,
inadequate solid waste management, high
stray dogs survival rate, lack of widespread
identification and registration of owned
animals, poor vaccination coverage, lack of
awareness and irresponsible dog ownership,
and absence of coordinated public
communication, localised effects of TNR
programmes.
The following recommendations were
presented as vital components of effective
dog population management programmes
and will be further elaborated in this paper:
• Dog population modelling, dog population
surveys and initial assessment including
attitudes and behaviour
• Coordination and communication through
stakeholder committees (veterinary
professionals, private, and public sector,
national and local authorities, NGOs,
citizens)
• Epidemiological database
• Revised waste management policies
• Animal Birth Control (ABC) programmes
developed with high community
engagement
• Continuing education of veterinary
professionals and training; disease
prevention and treatment options; eg. for
leishmaniasis
• Mandatory dog licensing systems
• Identification of owned and community
dogs2
There is little more to be said about the
available options, intervention tools and
methods, about the main drivers for dog
population management, about the
importance of working collaboratively, and
about the need to raise public awareness and
promote responsible ownership.
So, if the current state of knowledge is
adequate, the legislative mechanisms are in
place, and the programmes are well planned,
managed and resourced, where are the
perceived gaps? This paper will attempt to
review the current state of play by looking at a
number of case studies from the literature and
from practical field experience.
• DPM programmes led by government
through national policies and implemented
at the local level by all municipalities
• Public education (including community
and primary school education)
11
Introduction
It is important to develop
long term, sustainable strategies to deal
effectively with stray animal populations.
This is not only essential to protect humans
from coming into contact with the animals
but to protect stray animals from a range of
health and welfare problems they frequently
encounter: malnutrition, disease, injury
through road traffic accidents, injuries
through fighting, abusive treatment.
Dog ecology is intrinsically linked with human
activities so understanding and modifying
human behaviour has to be central to achieve
a permanent and sustainable change.
The scope of the OIE recommendations is ‘to
deal with stray and feral dogs, which pose
serious human health, animal health and
welfare problems and have socio-economic,
political and religious impact in many
countries. Whilst acknowledging human
health is a priority including the prevention
of zoonotic diseases notably rabies, the OIE
recognises the importance of controlling dog
populations without causing unnecessary or
avoidable animal suffering’3.
Attempts to control stray dog populations
presents a significant problem and is often
the cause of public and political debates;
some of the main concerns are inhumane
practices of catching, inhumane killing
practices, poorly resourced services that
cannot ensure minimum welfare for the
animals in their care. When this is not a
problem, and the provision of services,
resources, skill s and knowledge are readily
available, there is often still the issue of an
unacceptably high numbers of dogs being
abandoned, relinquished, euthanized
every year because suitable homes cannot
be found for them. In the UK, over the last
three years between 87,000 and 113,000
stray dogs have been collected annually
by local authorities, the majority are never
returned to their owners, many are re-homed,
but a considerable number of animals
are euthanized. Evidence has shown that
despite a significant amount of time and
investment, as well as proactive work by local
authorities, animal welfare charities and other
organisations, the problem of long term strays
has remained4.
A review of DPM practices and programmes
In 2007 WSPA and RSPCA
International supported a survey into stray
animal control practices in Europe5. 34 animal
welfare groups operating in 30 countries
12
in Europe and Euroasia responded to a
questionnaire on the control of stray dogs
and cats in their country during 2006/2007.
In addition to this, data was provided by the
competent authorities in five countries. No
country surveyed reported that it centrally
monitored its national dog population,
demographics or trends in ownership.
Although 67% gave estimates, those
figures were generally collected through
commercial activities, (kennel clubs, pet food
manufacturers).
The report included trends in stray dog
numbers between 2002-2007: 43% report
the numbers remaining constant, 13%
report an increase, 9% a decrease, 9% no
information, 26% no stray dogs 6. Although,
87% of surveyed countries had legislation
that covered animal welfare, only 42% had
legislation that specifically addressed pet
ownership. In 61% legislation relating to
pets outlined requirements for their care
and husbandry, 50% had restrictions in
the breeding and selling of dogs and cats.
Abandoning was made illegal in 70%, 70%
had compulsory licensing or registration
system, 77% had mandatory identification
yet over 50% report littleeffect of ID on stray
dog numbers due to lack of commitment to
effective enforcement. 10% did not permit
euthanasia of healthy animals, requiring
them to be kennelled for life, or in the case
of Greece re-released. In the majority of
surveyed countries local and municipal
authorities are responsible for the provision of
services7.
One could deduce from this report and from
other sources that in large parts of Europe
the legislative provisions are adequate, the
intervention tools are in place yet the results
are quite disappointing. Too little efforts
have been made to invest in preliminary
assessment resulting in a lack of consistent
data on the population size, source of stray
dogs and ownership trends. The gaps and
areas requiring improvement all point
towards poorly implemented and enforced
legislation, lack of political will for a long
term commitment, no strategic approach
or inadequately resourced and managed
strategies. This is further coupled by the lack
of technical skill and knowledge, lack of public
and community engagement and lack of
understanding of the issue which results in
misconceptions, poor attitudes towards stray
dogs and irresponsible behaviour.
Tasker (2007) identifies models of good
practice in Europe that have led to a reduction
in the unwanted dog population such was
the case in Slovenia. In 2003 it became
mandatory in Slovenia for all dogs born after
1.1.2003 to be microchipped. The scheme was
subsidised by the Slovene government and
by linking it to an existing rabies vaccination
register, every dog in Slovenia now has ‘an
owner’. In February 2011 there were 200,751
dogs registered in Slovenia, and in the last
few years further steps have been made to
promote responsible ownership through
introducing ‘leash laws’, and controlling the
supply by prohibiting irresponsible sale
of animals in the markets, streets, at public
events and regulating commercial breeding of
animals8.
In both Sweden and Switzerland it is a legal
requirement to register and identify dogs.
The responsibility is shared by a number
of agencies, animal collection services,
veterinary services, police, NGO/private
shelters. Legislation prohibits abandonment
and through municipal legislation further
dog control laws are enacted, such as leash
laws, fouling of land law and dog prohibited
areas. Neutering of owned dogs is not very
high in either country. The legislation is
controlling the source by regulating breeders
and prohibiting owners to allow reproduction
of their pets. In Switzerland, in addition to
well enforced dog control laws, owners are
required to attend courses on dog behaviour,
training and responsible ownership9.
These three examples illustrate more
centralised approaches to management
through national regulation frameworks, dog
control laws and enforcement accompanied
by a strong emphasis on responsible dog
ownership. While this may be a natural
approach in countries with a low baseline
number of stray animals, in many other parts
of Europe the persistently high stray dog
population and high rate of abandonment,
relinquishment and euthanasia calls for a
different approach.
13
In many parts of central and eastern Europe,
the Balkans, south eastern Europe, local
veterinary authorities have responsibility for
the collection of stray dogs, and destruction
at the end of the statuary holding period.
For many years no other interventions have
been employed, resulting in a consistently
large stray dog population. During the
period of political and economic transition
between the 1990s and 2000, in many
countries stray dog populations increased
due to abandonment of catch and kill
programmes under public pressure and
activities of animal welfare organisations,
but no adequate provisions were made to
replace it with more comprehensive DPM
programmes. This increase was further
supported by an increase in purchasing
power, increased and unregulated commercial
activity, and increased availability of pedigree
dogs. This has created a large vacuum in
terms of resources, skills, knowledge and
available infrastructure to meet these new
challenges. As will be evident by now, the
issue of effective companion animal control
is complex and often obscured by strong
emotions. Most of the EU member states have
undergone a period of legislative reform, and
in some ways the countries that are still facing
the challenge could capitalise on lessons
learned in other countries and regions and
employ innovative and holistic solutions to
face this unique challenge.
Why negative attitude towards
responsible dog ownership?
In 2007 the International
Companion Animal Management Coalition
(ICAM) published ‘ Humane Dog Population
Management Guidance’ ( ICAM, 2007)
aimed at the key stakeholders to provide
information and guidance on how to
assess dog population management needs
and determine the most effective and
resource efficient approach to population
management whilst at the same time
ensuring good animal welfare. The Coalition
believes that when population management
is deemed necessary, it is essential that it is
achieved in a humane manner and ultimately
leads to an improvement in the welfare of the
dog population as a whole10.
The ICAM Coalition recognises that the status,
14
composition and size of dog populations
can vary significantly between and within
countries and there is no blanket approach,
single intervention or combination of
interventions that will work in all contexts11.
An essential and often overlooked aspect of
developing a dog population management
strategy is the initial data collection and
analysis to establish the current dog
population size , identify the source of new
recruits to the population, animal welfare
issues, problems caused by strays, current
control methods, and identification of key
implementers and stakeholders. In addition,
behaviour and attitudes surveys are essential
to understand the demographic parameters,
beliefs, values and expectations of any given
community. This phase should precede
any intervention phase to ensure the DPM
programme is tailored to the specific needs of
the community and identifies characteristics
of the specific dog population. This will also
be essential in the monitoring and evaluation
phase.
Following an initial assessment, the
next stage will be to highlight the most
important factors that should be prioritised
in the programme to ensure resources are
expended in the way that will have an impact
on the wider problem. One of the most
important factors influencing dog population
dynamics is human behaviour, so it is very
important to study attitudes and behaviour
and understand what may affect human
behaviour towards animals. Environmental
factors and the reproductive capacity of the
population will also influence population
dynamics.
Developing an intervention strategy
The importance of
developing a comprehensive approach that
takes into account the important elements
discussed above cannot be overemphasised.
The comprehensive approach includes a
number of measures, preventative, curative,
legislative, but the designed intervention
model has to respond to the local situation,
local needs and local resources. No single
model will fit every situation, and when
interventions are employed without
a consistent, strategic, and long term
framework their impact can only be localised,
limited and short term.
Furthermore, the programme has to be
effectively communicated to the public
in order to secure the all important public
engagement and support. Often, well
designed strategies fail because they were
implemented in isolation and did not involve
the wider group of stakeholders and the
community as a whole. The role of the
media is critical and too often negative and
sensationalist media drives public perception
on this subject. There is also concerning
evidence that single intervention measures
can be mistaken for strategy, so in many parts
of Europe the debate between localised catchneuter-release (CNR) programmes versus
other measures is presented as one strategic
approach versus another. Unfortunately, this is
often not the case as frequently key elements
of a comprehensive long term approach have
not been considered, resulting in localised
interventions that have little impact.
An interesting study has been conducted in
the Abruzzo region of Italy, looking at the
cost benefit of different management options
of free roaming populations which were
subdivided into owned, free roaming (owned),
kennelled, block (community) dogs, stray dogs
. From a cost benefit analysis converting
as many stray dogs into community dogs
maximises the welfare and puts little strain on
resources. Conversely, kennelling decreases
the nuisance and health risk, but implies a
much greater investment and has significant
welfare implications. The study concludes that
further efforts should be made to develop
tools for measuring welfare outcomes
through the development of specific
indicators, psychological and behavioural, to
assess the cost benefit of different options
on welfare. The spreadsheet model was
15
proposed as a tool that would allow a better
allocation of resources. This model relies on
a number of inputs and the quality of data,
therefore further improvement of data quality
and more precise input measures could make
this model a very useful tool for cost-benefit
analysis13.
The key components of a comprehensive strategy
(Recommended reading: ICAM, Humane dog population management guidance, 2007)
1. Education,training and communication. Education
is the most important element of a long term
strategy as it focuses on human behaviour
which is a crucial factor in dog-human
ecology. It is often overlooked because it
requires a long term commitment. Also, it is
hard to evaluate and measure the impact of
education in the short term. However, there
are plenty of examples that communicating
specific messages to children and the
general public have resulted in an increased
awareness, sensibility and understanding of
dog behaviour, positive interaction between
dogs and people and more responsible
ownership. There are positive links between
communicating Responsible Pet Ownership
(RPO) messages and a change in behaviour
and attitudes, lower rate of abandonment and
an increased adoption of shelter dogs14.
It is important that education objectives are
clear, consistent and positive, as negative
messaging can encourage negative change.
The cost of education efforts are often borne
by the animal welfare organisations, however
it is very important that the education is
integrated through more formal channels
to achieve a widespread and consistent
effect. Training of personnel working in dog
control management services is crucial for
the effective implementation of the DPM
programme and to ensure best practice at
all times. This includes the training of those
involved in the initial assessment, training of
16
catching and handling staff and shelter staff,
training of veterinarians and crucially those
agencies responsible for the development
and delivery of the strategy.
Case study Zagreb, Croatia . Croatia adopted
its first animal welfare law in 2000, which
was amended in 2007. Identification of
dogs has been mandatory since 2001, but
not adequately enforced. Abandonment of
dogs is illegal and Croatian authorities have
always resisted pressure from animal welfare
organisations, local and international that
Catch Neuter Release (CNR) is implemented
as strategy. It is important to say that the
baseline number of stray animals in Zagreb
was reasonably low in the City, and probably
higher in the peripheral areas because of the
custom of letting animals roam freely.
In 2001 the first by-law regulating shelters,
holding facilities and animal establishments
was adopted. The shelter in Zagreb was
built in the same year, but the original
infrastructure was inadequate and unable
to meet the basic requirements set by the
regulation and in the following years further
investments were made to improve the
facility. Until 2008 the shelter was run by the
private Veterinary Station, but after a change
in legislation, which discontinues the role
of the old fashioned veterinary- hygiene
services that were traditionally responsible
for dog collection and running the holding
facilities, the animal control services and the
shelter became the competency of the City
of Zagreb. The City Council, to its credit, is
also funding another very important service,
the Info Centre for Animals which is run by a
network of local animal welfare organisations.
The animal control service is now part of the
non-profit activity and is further reorganised
into 3 sub-sectors, (catching teams, veterinary
and shelter management teams, and
communication/education team). The role
of the Info Centre is crucial as many animals
were reunited with their owners’ in the period
prior to the implementation of mandatory
identification.
In 2010 the municipal shelter received 572
dogs and rehomed 551, and 169 cats of
which 59 were rehomed. A total of 1368
interventions took place, of which 796
were dogs, and 385 cats, and 187 other
animals, and 724 adoption inspections were
conducted. The running costs of the shelter
are 4 million HRK (€550,000), all animals
processed through the facility are vaccinated,
sterilized and microchipped.
The costs savings through the activities of the
Info Centre whose total running budget is
230,000HRK pa (approx €31,000) is evident. In
2010 out of 787 reported lost dogs, 433 were
reunited with their owners, without being
processed through the shelter system, the
total costs of sterilization would have been
216,500 HRK (€29,000), vaccination 77,940HRK
(€10,530), total of 290,000 HRK (€39,530),
which is more than the annual cost of running
the Info service. This cost excludes the
significant costs of housing/food that would
have been occurred by processing and caring
for the dogs at the shelter for the statutory
period of 60 days.
The table bellow records the total activity
of the Info Centre and it demonstrates how
effective the service provided has been. By
reorganising the animal control services and
bringing it under the non-profit sector of the
City Council, the results are very impressive for
the City that 10 years previously operated a
catch and kill policy.
Collected/found animals
Lost animals
Number of
calls
Reunited/
rehomed
%
Number of
calls
Lost/
reunited
%
2010
2107
1121
53.20%
787
433
55.01%
2009
2118
1231
58.12%
768
425
55.33%
2008
1802
1160
64.37%
661
389
58.85%
2007
1839
1152
62.64%
552
310
56.15%
Total
7866
4664
59.29%
2768
1557
56.25%
Another very important factor is the
communication strategy that the Council
developed to work with the larger stakeholder
platform (NGOs, private vets, general public,
schools, enforcement agencies, media).
By organizing and hosting City events
and promoting neutering of owned dogs
through low cost spay and neuter days at the
municipal shelter, and through well thought
out media campaigns to promote adoption,
the City Council succeeded in mobilising
public support and community engagement.
Stricter leash and dog control laws were
also a contributing factor but those were
accompanied by information campaigns,
distribution of promotional leashes and
poop scoops that were secured through
sponsorship.
There are regular free sterilization days of
owned dogs held at the Veterinary faculty,
and in cooperation with the Department
for Education there is regular and positive
exchange between primary schools and the
municipal shelter.
17
It is important to say that apart from Zagreb,
most Croatian cities still do not have adequate
provisions in place for DPM, despite the
existing legal framework that requires them
to do so. Zagreb is a good example of a
proactive municipality that recognized the
importance of building and developing
a system, investing in infrastructure and
resources, developing a clear communication
strategy and multi-stakeholder committee
and securing public support by working
strategically and transparently15.
2. Legislation. It is important that the
management model fits within the existing
legislative frameworks, and that further
legislation and policy frameworks are
developed. Legislation has to be clear,
simple and enforceable and it should allow
for the evolution of management practices
over time. Education has to support the
development of new legislation and this is
particularly important in the implementation
phase, to allow time for up-skilling and
for the development of necessary training
provision. It is also important following the
adoption of new legislation to inform the
community about new responsibilities and
expectations. In many European countries
introduction of dog control laws has had a
very positive impact on reducing the numbers
of unwanted and abandoned animals and has
promoted responsible behaviour. Particularly
good examples are Slovenia, UK, Sweden,
Switzerland, Belgium, Austria and many
others.
3. Registration, identification and licensing.
This is the most effective way of clearly
connecting an owner with the animal, and
it is also an important tool for successful
enforcement. In many countries mandatory
identification has had a significant impact on
population reduction and control. However,
it is important to remember that for many
countries this will be an expensive option to
implement, and it works best when subsidised
by the government. If it is imposed and
prohibitive in terms of cost, and there are
no provisions in the period of transition to
this model, it could result in an immediate
increase in abandonment.
18
In the UK RSPCA has been calling for reintroduction of mandatory licensing. Initial
research by Reading University has concluded
that in order to provide a self-funding
licensing scheme the annual fee may be as
little as £20 per annum16. This income could in
turn produce revenue to fund a higher quality
service, and a dog licence could improve the
culture of dog ownership. Additionally if a
reduced fee is charged for neutered dogs, this
may lead to a reduction in the population.
Underfunding is a historic problem that
has affected dog control in the UK since the
licensing scheme was scrapped in 1987.
The cost of dog control is borne by the local
government and NGOs and was estimated to
be over £50 million in 200917.
23 countries in Europe have a dog licence
or registration scheme. In those where it
operates it is considered an essential part
of a successful stray control strategy and in
some countries, such as Germany, Slovenia
and the Netherlands, dog control provisions
have controlled reproduction and dog
overpopulation, and reduced the risks from
dog-borne diseases18.
4. Sterilisation and contraception. The control
of reproduction along with responsible
ownership is an instrumental factor in the
control and management of dog populations.
This can be achieved through surgical or
chemical sterilisation and by physical isolation
of females in oestrus. Sterilisation crucially
needs to link to the initial assessment to
identify the groups of dogs that are most
critical to target because of their high
reproductive capacity. Equally, when
resources are used to neuter the free roaming
populations, it is important to ensure that the
source of dogs is controlled by also targeting
owned dogs in the DPM programme.
Many countries in Europe and worldwide
have implemented a CNR approach which
targets the free roaming populations as part
of a wider strategy. However, apart from
a few successful models (India, Thailand,
Romania-Oradea) where CNR was used as a
part of a more comprehensive, well managed
and resourced programme, many ‘so called’
CNR programmes fail to achieve the desired
effect, partly because of their localised nature,
and partly because they are inadequately
researched, resourced and conducted.
There is a significant gap in knowledge
as to how effective this approach is as
interventions are often conducted without
prior scoping and assessment. Also, unless
such programmes are fully resourced so that
they can be implemented in a systematic
and strategic manner, they will suffer from
sporadic and reactive efforts without a
significant impact, and yet a relatively high
resource investment which could potentially
alienate the community because it is not
meeting its objectives.
Further considerations in CNR programmes
include the welfare implications ofroad traffic
accidents, mistreatment and cruelty, zoonotic
diseases, and the nuisance that dogs may
pose to people.
Over the past 15 years CNR programmes
have been used alone or in combination with
interventions in a number of cities in Eastern
Europe; Belgrade, Sofia, Skopje, Oradea and
many others, and they may have a positive,
although localised effect at least for a period
of time. However, where the programmes
have been discontinued and abandoned,
even after a relatively short period of time, the
positive impact was lost, and the population
quickly increased back to its’ original size.
This demonstrates that unless an adopted
programme or a strategy leads to a deep
and permanent change in societal attitudes
and behaviour, the efforts made will be
unsustainable.
Case study . The action of mass sterilization
of roaming dogs in Belgrade started four
years ago in 2006. In 2006 the DPM strategy
in Belgrade had well designed and effective
education interventions, and a multi
stakeholder committee was appointed
to implement and monitor the DPM
programme. Following a number of changes
in administrative and political structures, and
an open public disagreement between NGOs,
the strategic approach was abandoned. The
negative climate generated by the media
resulted in the loss of public engagement and
the numbers of stray dogs have remained
the same and slightly increasing after 5
years of CNR intervention which could be
clearly observed from the estimated and the
possible number of roaming dogs (the lower
and the upper limit of 95% CI, Fig. 1, Table
2)19. It is very important to mention that at
the beginning of 2006 a total of 4195 free
roaming dogs were registered in 10 central
municipalities of Belgrade. (http://www.
wieninternational.at/en/node/911)20.
In 2010 population surveys estimated the
number of roaming dogs during the first
counting in Belgrade at 4380 and 4952
during the second counting. The second
counting disclosed 572 roaming dogs surplus
comparing with the first counting. Difference
of the estimated number of roaming dogs
between the first and the second counting
was statistically significant (P<0.0001)21. It
means that the number of roaming dogs
significantly increased in Belgrade22. Also,
this result shows that actual measures for the
control of the population of roaming dogs
in Belgrade are not completely effective.
In Belgrade measures for roaming dogs’
population control consist of a so called “nokill” strategy and a mass sterilization of dogs
of all ages and both genders. Employees of
the municipal service catch dogs at public
areas and transport them to the Faculty
of Veterinary Medicine in Belgrade where
they are surgically sterilized. Sterilized
dogs are released at public areas again.
The consequence is a great number of dog
bites and dissatisfaction of some citizens in
Belgrade. Therefore, some roaming dogs were
poisoned or seriously injured by unknown
citizens. Cases of poisoning and cruelty
towards roaming dogs is a common scenario
in Belgrade and other Serbian towns23.
There is a municipal shelter for short term
adoption of roaming dogs and several private,
“no kill” shelters in Belgrade. However in
Belgrade all housing capacities of private
rescue shelters are full. It is an indicator of a
low level of adoption of roaming dogs from
shelters by citizens.
19
It could be concluded that the control
measure in the form of mass sterilization in
Belgrade manages the number of roaming
dogs at the approximate constant level.
In Belgrade, dog population size did not
decline from 2006 to 2010. It means that the
implementation of “no-kill” strategy with
the Animal Birth Control (ABC) program
in order of controlling roaming dogs’
population size and rabies are not sufficient
in the case of Belgrade. These measures
should be accompanied with others such
as implementation of legislation at all
levels, rehoming and education. It is very
important to inform responsible people in the
government how to start the right strategy for
free roaming dogs control. Also, it seems that
the number of roaming dogs included in mass
sterilization program is insufficient, so more
dogs should be reached by this programme.
The goal of the mass sterilization of roaming
dogs in 2006 and 2007 was to embrace more
than 3000 dogs per year. However, in 2008
the programme of mass sterilization was
disrupted and then continued again in 2009
and 2010. However, just more than 2000
roaming dogs were sterilized from a summer
in 2009 to the summer in 201024.
A couple of case studies from Sofia and Skopje
further reiterate the problems encountered
in Belgrade. In Sofia, Bulgaria, due to
much constant pressure from local animal
protection societies, the authorities adopted
a CNR programmes, when before they had
a catch & kill programme. This was decided
without any public consultation or working
with various stakeholders. The personnel
responsible for catching did not have any
training or experience in physically catching
or handling the dogs, as they were always
caught by means of chemical capture, and this
is still the case. This resulted in dogs being
mishandled within the shelter environment,
and also when the dogs are released.
There was no strategy behind this CNR
programme, dogs were caught on receipt of
public complaints to the local municipality,
i.e. when residents notified them about
stray dogs causing problems in their
neighbourhood. Because there was no prior
20
public consultation, local residents were
surprised to see the dogs being returned a
few days after capture, they did not want
stray dogs in their community and did not
understand the rationale behind CNR. This
has now resulted in many residents taking
their own measures to control stray dog
numbers by poisoning the dogs after their
return25.
In Skopje, Macedonia, again due to constant
lobbying by local animal protection societies,
CNR was first adopted in 1999 by the city
authorities. The SVS were not consulted,
neither were local residents or other potential
stakeholders. In 2000 there was a minor
rabies outbreak, initiated by a cat living
on the outskirts of the city, and probably
being exposed to a bite from a fox. This was
enough to trigger a major alert by the SVS,
and an immediate cull was implemented
against all stray dogs within the city, including
those which were vaccinated and neutered.
CNR has again been introduced within
Skopje, this time with SVS involvement as
the competent authority. Initially, 2007,
the programme was progressing quite well,
the strategy was adequately funded by the
city authorities, a shelter, or holding facility
was built ( not very well ) for sterilisation
of dogs, and the company responsible for
garbage removal was given the contract to
manage the CNR programme. However a
change of administration in the Skopje city
authorities and more recently the in the
management of the contracted company
resulted in downgraded procedures. Local
animal welfare groups are outraged and the
intervention by the SVS is now imminent.
And since they recently adopted a regulation
on animal shelter and holding facilities they
may be forced to take strict measures against
the city authorities, and possibly close the
holding facility down26. The Veterinary Faculty
of Skopje conducted a review of the current
practices and recommended a comprehensive
strategy for the City of Skopje, however, that is
yet to be implemented.
5. Holding facilities and shelters. Building a shelter
will not on its own resolve a problem in the
long term. On the contrary it will create many
new problems; it will drain resources and will
potentially result in overcrowding of animals
in places with a low potential of re-homing.
Shelters should serve a temporary role, where
animals are screened for disease, vaccinated,
neutered and identified and then re-homed,
released or euthanized. The cost of building
and running shelters is very high and perhaps
the most costly way of removing dogs from
the street. There are also welfare impactions,
and behavioural and psychological problems
which are associated with long term
kennelling. In many countries where dog
control services are poorly resourced it is likely
that the infrastructure will be very poor and
not able to ensure minimum standards for
animals kept in shelters. There are alternative
options to shelters such as creating fostering
networks where animals can be housed in
the short term before l re-homing. Because
shelters require a constant and high level
of resources to cover the running and
operational costs, there is a danger that the
available budget will be consumed at the
expense of other important and long term
measures.
An interesting study of free roaming dog
control in the OIE- member countries
published the following findings. The study
of free roaming dogs in the OIE countries
concludes that ‘dog shelters were more often
used in high-HDI (human development
index) countries: forty-two indexed
countries provided the number of shelters
located on their territories, and 28 of these
(66%) were in highly developed countries.
Adoption percentages were provided only
by 28 countries, and 20 of these (74%) were
highly developed. Of the total number of
3867 dog shelters/pounds reported, only
265 (6.8%) were located in medium- or lowdeveloped countries. However, the use of
dog shelters also represents an expense that
many countries are unable to afford. Our
questionnaire’s results suggest that the use of
dog shelters is almost exclusively confined to
high-HDI countries. The deployment of less
costly, but nonetheless humane, alternatives
should be considered where dog shelters are
too costly for practical use and/or in addition
to limited use of dog shelters27.
6. Euthanasia. When implementing
comprehensive dog population strategies,
euthanasia will be required for animals that
are suffering from an illness or injury, or
behavioural problems that will prevent them
from being rehomed. Euthanasia can also be
considered for animals that are not coping
well enough in the shelter conditions and
whose welfare is compromised by long term
kennelling, and for those for which suitable
homes could not be found. The ultimate goal
of DPM programmes is that every animal is
found a suitable owner and no healthy animal
is euthanized. However, in many countries
in the world, the size of the stray population
and scarce resources available for dog control
mean that euthanasia of healthy dogs is
the sad reality brought on by uncontrolled
breeding and irresponsible ownership. It is
for those reasons that euthanasia of healthy
dogs may have to be considered a measure at
least in the initial stages of the programme’s
implementation. It is important to emphasise
that euthanasia alone will not lead to
population management, as many past and
present experiences have shown. Further
concerns are posed by inhumane methods
of killing which are unacceptable and there
are clear OIE guidelines as to which methods
can be legitimately used. It is clear that
inhumane killing practices do little to educate
and sensitise the public for the better as they
further alienate and divide the community.
Dalla Villa et al (2010) s highlight that dog
control programmes are less likely to be used
in less-developed countries, and that the
control measures used tend to be expensive,
ineffective, and inhumane. ‘Animal-welfare
concerns clearly arise from this issue,
particularly in light of the widespread use of
poisoned baits and shooting. Experiences in
developing countries in Latin America, Asia
and Africa have shown that removal of FRDs
by these methods has little or no impact on
population densities, because losses are easily
compensated by increased survival in the
populations that remain28.
7. Veterinary provisions. Veterinary provisions
21
must be in place to provide preventative
treatments to protect the health of people
and animals and reduce the danger of
zoonotic disease. Rabies is the most
important issue, but there are other zoonoses
transmitted by free roaming dogs which can
also be screened and vaccinated against,
alongside internal and external parasite
control. The treatment should be provided in
conjunction with education about responsible
ownership, sterilisation, and registration and
identification. The Lilongwe Society for the
Protection and Care of Animals in Malawi
(supported by RSPCA International) runs
regular mobile community veterinary clinics
which provide free rabies vaccinations and
basic veterinary treatments for domestic and
farm animals. With an almost total lack of
access to professional veterinary or extension
services in poor communities in Malawi,
provision of such services by an ngo can have
a significant impact on welfare.
8. Access to resources. It has already been said
that dog ecology is intrinsically linked to
human ecology and human behaviour. Dogs
are motivated to roam where there is access to
resources such as food, so the regular removal
of garbage from public bins is essential, the
fencing of garbage collection sites, the control
of carcass disposal, restricting access to sites
where large amount of foods are disposed,
such as resorts, hospitals, factories.
Case study. On the outskirts of Cairo is a large
chicken farm used for egg production. End of
lay chickens were killed and chicken carcasses
were placed in large mounds and incinerated
in the open. Despite incineration, the majority
of the carcasses beneath the top layer were
only cooked, this resulted in huge numbers
of dogs being attracted to this establishment.
Dog shooters were employed to carry
out a monthly cull of the stray dogs and
approximately 100 dogs were killed on each
occasion. Advice was given to provide more
adequate fencing around the incineration
area, fencing was to be buried into the sand
to a depth of 1 metre to discourage dogs
from digging their way in. Advice was also
provided on raking over the carcass heap after
incineration and to reignite again to ensure
that carcasses were properly incinerated. A
revisit approximately 6 months later revealed
that dog shooters were no longer necessary
as stray dog levels were minimal29.
Designing a model for DPM programme
Queensland case study
In Queensland, Australia
in 2008 a review of strategies for effective
management of unwanted dogs and cats was
undertaken by the Monash University (REF)
aimed to reduce the high number of healthy
animals being euthanased and promote
22
responsible ownership. Five options were
presented, and scientific merits established for
each option, based on practicality, feasibility,
and anticipated effectiveness as well as the
expected cost and benefits for companion
animals to owners, ngos, local and central
governments, and commercial entities. Over
5000 public submissions were provided and
analysed and a four stage approach strategy
was developed, which crucially focused on
the development of a strong, coherent and
simple legislative framework that encourages
responsible ownership behaviour, regulates
the provision of services through shelters
and holding facilities, and supports effective
animal management at the local government
level. Interestingly, in the proposed model
implementation strategies are left until
later in the process. The first two stages are
dedicated to developing a comprehensive
and a state wide legislative framework that
is designed with sensitivity to cultural issues
and regional variations across the state.
Rather than being prescriptive it functions
as an enabling advice, outlining minimum
requirements but with local councils able
to flexibly apply these as appropriate.
The second phase focuses on strong
community engagement, awareness raising
and education, population modelling and
identifying sources and factors that contribute
to abandonment and relinquishment of
animals. The final phase includes the review
and improvement of animal management
practices including (i) evaluation of education
programmes and their impact on attitudes
and behaviours, (ii) data collection through
shelters and other holding facilities following
introduction of mandatory identification
for comparison with baseline data collected
during phase 2, (iii) and provision of feedback
to stakeholders and government to inform
future policy development30.
Importantly, a very strong recommendation
made by this study is in placing the focus on
education (both state wide and targeted)
, training to improve technical skill and
knowledge and other provisions to allow
citizens, businesses, local governments to
adjust to altered expectations.
Conclusion
Over the past 20 years
we have seen numerous interventions
by local and international animal welfare
organisations, in the development of stray
control programmes and strategies. A great
deal of effort has been made by local and
central authorities to develop infrastructure,
resources and alternative options for dog
population management, but despite efforts
and successful localised interventions,
the challenge of reducing and effectively
managing the dog population still remains
a considerable social, economic and political
issue. Although the result of this activity has
brought about an increased public awareness,
increased community engagement,
investment in resources and capacities, the
lack of systematic, scientific and practical
approaches has also created more confusion,
misconception and unrealistic expectations.
The implementation of interventions outside
a clear policy framework has resulted in
ad hoc approaches focussing only on one
or two aspects of the possible scope of a
comprehensive intervention.
The clear lack of baseline data, and minimal
scientific research in this field means that
interventions are not adequately targeted
and current actions may simply mask the
23
problem rather than resolve it. Perhaps,
we have focussed too much on alleviating
the symptoms and have not looked at the
problem. Perhaps our vision has become too
narrow and focussed on solutions without
fully understanding the problem. What
is the problem? Which dog populations
are we trying to manage? What types of
behaviour are we trying to modify? What
is ownership and what do we mean by
responsible ownership? It is also possible
that we are approaching this issue at an
overly technical, solution-focused angle and
have not invested enough to understand
the socio-cultural factors behind this social
phenomenon. Broadening this discussion
to include the perspective of social scientists
may help current stakeholders to gain a fresh
perspective on some factors that are outside
the current scope of knowledge.
Notes and References
1. OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code,
chapter on the Control of the Stray Dog
populations, 2009
2. FAO Electronic Consultation Dog
Population Options with Special Emphasis
on Animal Welfare and Health, 13
September-8 October 2010
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/
animal-welfare/blog/en
3. OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code,
chapter on the Control of the Stray Dog
populations, 2009
4. RSPCA - The Welfare State, Five years
measuring animal welfare in the UK 20052009
5. Tasker, L. Stray Animal Control Practices
(Europe), WSPA and RSPCA < 2007
6. As above
7. Tasker, L. Stray Animal Control Practices
(Europe), WSPA and RSPCA
8. Source Sedlbauer, M. , State Veterinary
24
Service , Slovenia
9. Tasker, L. Stray Animal Control Practices
(Europe), WSPA and RSPCA
10.Humane Dog Population Management
Guidance, ICAM, 2007
11.Humane Dog Population Management
Guidance, ICAM, 2007
12.Dalla Villa, A Di Nardo, Er C2, Høgåsen
H, Cost benefit analysis of different
management options for free roaming
dog populations in Abruzzo, Italy, XIV ISAH
Congresss, July 2009, Vechta, Germany
13.P Dalla Villa, A Di Nardo, Er C2, Høgåsen
H, Cost benefit analysis of different
management options for free roaming
dog populations in Abruzzo, Italy, XIV ISAH
Congresss, July 2009, Vechta, Germany
14.A comprehensive strategy was developed
by the Zagreb City Council between
2002- 2008 which included public
education, and incentives to promote
responsible ownership such as neutering
and identification. There has been an
evident increase in the numbers of animals
adopted from a municipal shelter, lower
abandonment rates, and generally more
positive community engagement.
23.Vucinic, M., et al, Bites to human caused
by stray and owned dogs in Belgrade, Acta
Veteriaria 58
24. As above
15.Source: Jura Ambrozic, Zagreb City Council
25.Source RSPCA International reports
16.RSPCA, Improving Dog Ownership, The
economic case for dog licensing.
26.Source RSPCA International reports
17. RSPCA, Annual report, 2009
18. Tasker, L. Stray Animal Control Practices
(Europe), WSPA and RSPCA
19.Vucinic, M., Regional results of free
roaming dog surveys in Western Balkans,
2010
20.Cited in above
21.Vucinic, M., Regional results of free
roaming dogs surveys in Western Balkans,
2010
27. Free roaming dog control among the
OIE-member countries, P. Dalla Villa et al. /
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 97 (2010)
58–63
28. As above
29.Source, Faulkner, B., Visit report
30.Review of strategies for effectively
managing unwanted dogs and cats in
Queensland, L Marston et al, Animal
Welfare Science centre, Monash University,
2008
22.As above
25
Bruno Chomel
DOG POPULATION
MODELING
Literature review
26
Introduction
Human companion animal
overpopulation is a man-made problem that
leads to major public health issues (Franck,
2004), especially transmission of zoonotic
diseases such as rabies, leishmaniasis or
echinococcosis by stray dogs. As stated by
Lambo et al. (2010) “insufficient knowledge
of dog population sizes for planning of
vaccination campaigns is one of the limiting
factors for lack of effective rabies control in
Africa”.
Furthermore, knowledge of dog population
dynamics is essential to establish appropriate
strategies for zoonosis control.
Control of free-roaming dogs is also an
important issue that was investigated through
a questionnaire distributed to state veterinary
services of all 172 World Organization for
Animal Health (OIE) countries and responded
by 81 (47%) of the member states (Dalla Villa
et al., 2010).
modeling abundance estimates in longterm population monitoring programs
that addressed the issues of sampling with
replacement or an unknown number of
marked individuals.
They addressed these limitations by
introducing the Poisson log and zerotruncated Poisson log-normal mixed effects
models (PNE and (Z)PNE, respectively).
Compared to other available estimators, they
generally found (Z)PNE to be more precise
with little or no loss in confidence interval
coverage.
Three main Issues need to be addressed:
1. Dog population estimates
2. Dog population structure and turnover
3. Dog population dynamics using various
scenarios: culling, spay/neutering
In most developing countries, the turnover
of the dog population is high and dog
culling and replacement may be a factor of
increased risks. As shown in an endemic area
for cutaneous visceral leishmaniasis (CVL) in
Brazil (Nunes et al.,2008), euthanasia and the
subsequent replacement ratio were high. It
increased the dog population turnover and
leading to a younger population that might
be more susceptible to a variety of other
infectious diseases in addition to CVL.
Estimation of dog populations and their
dynamics have largely been based on
estimations of dog-to-human ratios done
through household sampling methods or
through capture-mark-recapture methods.
Unfortunately, the scientific literature is very
limited on modeling of dog population. In a
prairie-dog population model, McCkintock
et al. (2009) proposed adjustment when
27
Dog population estimates
Dog population density
is quite important to estimate the number
of dogs that need to be vaccinated against
rabies (or treated for internal parasites
(echinococcosis) or ectoparasites), as shown
in an urban and semi-rural area of Zambia
(deBalogh et al., 1993). In the urban study area
(Mutendere, a low income suburb of Lusaka)
only 11% of the households kept dogs with
a dog:human ratio of 1:45. In the semi-rural
area (Palabana) dogs were kept by 42% of
households with a dog:human ratio of 1:6.7.
In a study of density estimates, Childs et al.
(1997) estimated the population density of
dogs by distance sampling and assessed the
potential utility of two marking methods
for capture-mark-recapture applications
following a mass canine rabies-vaccination
campaign in Sorsogon Province, the
Philippines. Thirty villages selected to assess
vaccine coverage and for dog surveys were
visited 1 to 11 days after the vaccinating
team. Measurements of the distance of dogs
or groups of dogs from transect lines were
obtained in 1088 instances (N = 1,278 dogs;
mean group size = 1.2).
Various functions modeling the probability
of detection were fitted to a truncated
distribution of distances of dogs from transect
lines. A hazard rate model provided the best
fit and an overall estimate of dog-population
density of 468/km2 (95% confidence interval,
359 to 611). At vaccination, most dogs were
marked with either a paint stick or a black
plastic collar. Overall, 34.8% of 2,167 and
28.5% of 2,115 dogs could be accurately
identified as wearing a collar or showing a
paint mark; 49.1% of the dogs had either
mark. Increasing time interval between
vaccination-team visit and dog survey and
increasing distance from transect line were
inversely associated with the probability
28
of observing a paint mark. Probability of
observing a collar was positively associated
with increasing estimated density of the
dog population in a given village and with
animals not associated with a house. The
data indicate that distance sampling is a
relatively simple and adaptable method for
estimating dog-population density and is not
prone to problems associated with meeting
some model assumptions inherent to markrecapture estimators.
Similarly, Kayali et al. (2003) used a capturemark-recapture approach for population
estimates, with a Bayesian, Markov chain,
Monte Carlo method to estimate the total
number of owned dogs, and the ratio of
ownerless to owned dogs to calculate
vaccination coverage.
When they took into account ownerless
dogs, the vaccination coverage in the dog
populations was 87% (95% confidence
interval (CI), 84-89%) in study zone I, 71%
(95% CI, 64-76%) in zone II, and 64% (95%
CI, 58-71%) in zone III. The proportions of
ownerless dogs to owned dogs were 1.1%
(95% CI, 0-3.1%), 7.6% (95% CI, 0.7-16.5%), and
10.6% (95% CI, 1.6-19.1%) in the three study
zones, respectively. Vaccination coverage in
the three populations of owned dogs was
88% (95% CI, 84-92%) in zone I, 76% (95% CI,
71-81%) in zone II, and 70% (95% CI, 66-76%)
in zone III.
Dog population structure and turn-over
Such information is important
to evaluate the sex ratio and average age.
For example, in a recent survey of 1,541
households in Antananarivo, Madagascar
(Ratsitorahina et al., 2009), dog ownership was
common, with 79.6 to 94.1% (mean 88.9%) of
households in the six districts owning dogs.
The mean owned dog to person ratio was 1
dog per 4.5 persons and differed between
districts, with ratios of 1:6.0 in the first
arrondissement, 1:3.2 persons in the 2nd, 1:4.8
in the 3rd, 1:5.2 in the 4th, 1:5.6 in the 5th and
1:4.4 in the 6th arrondissement.
Overall, there were more male dogs (61.3%)
and the male/female sex ratio was estimated
to be 1.52; however, mature females were
more likely than males to be unowned (OR:
1.93, CI 95%; 1.39<OR<2.69). Most (79.1%)
owned dogs were never restricted and
roamed freely to forage for food and mix with
other dogs.
Similarly in a study in Kenya of 150 dogowning households (Kitala et al., 2001), dog
ownership was common, with a range of
53-81% (mean=63%) of households owning
dogs in the six sub-locations. Dog density for
the 5 more rural sub-locations ranged from
6-21 dogs /km2 and for the peri-urban sublocation was 110 dogs/km2.
The dog population was estimated to be
growing at 9% p.a. (95% C.I. 4--14%). This
growth was a function of very high fecundity
(1.3 females per female per year) more than
compensating for high mortality, particularly
among females. Life expectancy from birth
was 3.5 years for males and 2.4 years for
females. Half the dogs at any one time were
less than 1 year of age. All dogs, by design of
the study, were owned. Of these, 69% were
never restricted and roamed freely to forage
for food and mix with other dogs.
Dog population dynamics using various scenarios:
culling, spay/neutering
Culling. Culling has been shown to be an
unsuccessful approach in dog population
dynamics and control of zoonoses. For a long
time, dog elimination has been considered
as an essential measure of rabies control in
endemic areas. However, studies conducted
in Sri Lanka and in Guayaquil, Ecuador,
indicate that elimination of dogs by any
method had no significant long-term effect on
dog population size. In Peru and Bolivia, dog
elimination programs have never been able to
reach more than 5% of the dog population.
29
In Guayaquil, a retrospective analysis of the
results of the sustained dog elimination
campaigns made from 1980 to 1985 shows
that even an elimination level ranging from
12 to 25% of the estimated dog population
did not durably affect the size of the target
population and did not durably reduce canine
rabies incidence (Beran and Frith, 1988).
Dog elimination is often badly perceived
by the population and receives community
acceptance and cooperation only during focal
outbreaks of rabies.
Spay/neuter programs. In his study, Frank
(2004) sustain that based on his modeling, a
“no-kill” society is an achievable goal at an
acceptable human cost. In the USA, spay/
neuter programs were generally found to be
the most effective, with increasing adoptions
also being an effective option. However, spay/
neuter policies need to be evaluated over a
very long time horizon since full impact may
not be achieved for 30 years or more.
In Italy, a spreadsheet population dynamics
model was constructed to evaluate the impact
of female dog sterilization on the domestic
dog population for the province of Teramo
(Di Nardo et al., 2007). Baseline owned-dog
population structure as well as the annual
number of births, adoptions, abandonments,
and purchases were estimated based on
regional managed kennel data in addition to
a telephone questionnaire administered to
members of the local population. Age- and
gender-dependent death rates were based on
domestic dog life tables. The model predicted
that at the current female dog sterilization
rate of 30%, the owned dog population will
most probably continue to increase. After
20 years, a mean annual increase of 2.6%
(median: 2.5%, 95% CI: -3.2% to 8.8%) is
projected assuming that the average age at
sterilization is 3 years. A sterilization rate of at
least 55% is estimated to be needed to halt
population growth if the current age structure
for female dog sterilization is maintained.
However, if the province of Teramo were to
focus on sterilizing female dogs less than 1
year of age, the required sterilization rate to
arrest population growth could be reduced to
as low as 26%.
Concluding remarks and Recommendations
Overall, there is a:
1. Lack of recent dog population modeling
which apply to the third-world.
2. Lack of measurements for impact of
population composition (ratio male/
female, life expectancy, age structure).
3. Lack of studies on the internal and external
movements of dogs within a given
population (new comers or replacement)
4. Limited to no studies on impact of
reproduction rate and sterilization of dog
population on a large scale for control of
30
zoonotic diseases (mainly done in very
restricted geographic areas but not at the
scale of a region or a country).
Therefore, studies should be performed to
address these issues, especially the impact
of dog population turn-over and the impact
of spaying/neutering program on the dog
population dynamics (structure, growth,
movements).
References
1. Beran GW, Frith M. Domestic animal rabies
control: an overview. Rev Infect Dis. 1988:10
Suppl 4:S672-7.
2. Beyer HL, Hampson K, Lembo T,
Cleaveland S, Kaare M, Haydon DT.
Metapopulation dynamics of rabies and the
efficacy of vaccination. Proc Biol Sci. 2010
Dec 15. [Epub ahead of print]
3. Childs JE, Robinson LE, Sadek R, Madden
A, Miranda ME, Miranda NL. Density
estimates of rural dog populations and an
assessment of marking methods during
a rabies vaccination campaign in the
Philippines. Prev Vet Med. 1998;33:207-218.
4. Dalla Villa P, Kahn S, Stuardo L, Iannetti L,
Di Nardo A, Serpell JA. Free-roaming dog
control among OIE-member countries. Prev
Vet Med. 2010;97:58-63.
9. Kitala P, McDermott J, Kyule M, Gathuma
J, Perry B, Wandeler A. Dog ecology and
demography information to support the
planning of rabies control in Machakos
District, Kenya. Acta Trop. 2001;78(3):217230.
10.Kayali U, Mindekem R, Yémadji N,
Vounatsou P, Kaninga Y, Ndoutamia AG,
Zinsstag J. Coverage of pilot parenteral
vaccination campaign against canine rabies
in N’Djaména, Chad. Bull World Health
Organ. 2003;81:739-744.
11.Lembo T, Hampson K, Kaare MT, Ernest
E, Knobel D, Kazwala RR, Haydon DT,
Cleaveland S. The feasibility of canine rabies
elimination in Africa: dispelling doubts with
data. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(2):e626.
5. De Balogh KK, Wandeler AI, Meslin FX. A
dog ecology study in an urban and a semirural area of Zambia. Onderstepoort J Vet
Res. 1993;60(4):437-43.
12.McClintock BT, White GC, Antolin MF,
Tripp DW. Estimating abundance using
mark-resight when sampling is with
replacement or the number of marked
individuals is unknown. Biometrics. 2009
Mar;65(1):237-246.
6. Di Nardo A, Candeloro L, Budke
CM, Slater MR. Modeling the effect of
sterilization rate on owned dog population
size in central Italy. Prev Vet Med.
2007;82:308-313.
13.Matter HC, Wandeler AI,Neuenschwander
BE, Harischandra LP, Meslin FX. Study of
the dog population and the rabies control
activities in the Mirigama area of Sri Lanka.
Acta Trop. 2000; 75:95-108.
7. Frank J. An interactive model of human and
companion animal dynamics: the ecology
and economics of dog overpopulation and
the human costs of addressing the problem.
Human Ecology 2004;32:107-130.
14.Nunes CM, Lima VM, Paula HB, Perri SH,
Andrade AM, Dias FE, Burattini MN. Dog
culling and replacement in an area endemic
for visceral leishmaniasis in Brazil. Vet
Parasitol. 2008;153:19-23.
8. Hampson K, Dushoff J, Cleaveland S,
Haydon DT, Kaare M, Packer C, Dobson
A. Transmission dynamics and prospects for
the elimination of canine rabies. PLoSBiol.
2009;7: e53.
15.Ratsitorahina M, Rasambainarivo JH,
Raharimanana S, Rakotonandrasana H,
Andriamiarisoa MP, Rakalomanana FA,
Richard V. Dog ecology and demography in
Antananarivo, 2007. BMC Vet Res. 2009;5:21.
31
Chinny Krishna
THE SUCCESS OF
THE ABC PROGRAMME IN INDIA
32
The bond between man
and dog had its beginning 12-14 millennia
ago somewhere in Eurasia where a
reciprocal relationship between them first
emerged. Provided with scraps of food
when approaching the early encampments
and settlements of man, the wolf soon
became a frequent and welcome visitor,
warning man of imminent danger and later
assisting him in the hunt for wild animals.
Thus began the domestication of the dog
and the establishment of a bond between
man and animals that has no equal. Today,
man violates that bond by allowing dogs
to breed excessively and then abandoning
them in great numbers, thus creating
hazards for the dogs themselves as well as
a considerable health risk to human society.
All too often, authorities confronted with the
problems caused by these dogs have turned
to mass destruction in the hope of finding
a quick solution, only to discover that the
destruction had to continue, year after year,
with no end in sight. Moreover, by reducing
temporarily the population of straying dogs,
the authorities had improved the chances of
survival of the remainder and provided fresh
opportunities for newly-abandoned dogs. It
is now becoming recognised that removal
of surplus dogs cannot solve the problem
unless combined with other measures such
as registration and neutering of dogs and
education of the public1.
the Corporation was so high that the Central
Leather Research Institute, Madras, designed
products – such as neckties and wallets – from
dog skins” 5. The number of dogs being killed
by the Corporation continued to rise after
this period. So did the number of dogs on
the street and so did the number of cases of
human rabies deaths.
In 1964, appalled by the horrific way the
Corporation of Madras was killing street
dogs, the Blue Cross of India began to study
this issue. They were surprised to learn that
the Madras Corporation - at 300 years one
of the oldest Corporations in the world started its catch-and-kill programme in 1860.
Dogs regarding which complaints were
received were often shot on the street and
the complaints generally were about dogs
which were biters and, therefore, suspected
to be rabid. Section 218 of The Madras City
Municipal Corporation Act of 1919 authorised
catching and killing any dog on the street
which did not have a licence tag. S. Theodore
Baskaran, the former Post Master General of
Tamil Nadu states, and I quote: “In the early
1970s, the number of stray dogs destroyed by
As could be expected, the Madras
Corporation’s response was to reject the
proposal outright. The Blue Cross kept up
the pressure on the Corporation and began
to spay/neuter all street dogs rescued by it.
After treatment, the dog would be spayed,
vaccinated and released at the same spot
from where it had been picked up. Owners
were also encouraged to have their pets
spayed and vaccinated free of charge. A few
hundred operations were done each year but
the number of street dogs showed no signs of
coming down. After a few years, we realised
that each area had its “holding capacity” for
street dogs and this was determined primarily
by the availability of food sources.
The Blue Cross of India was convinced that if
a procedure designed to control or eliminate
street dogs had not showed positive results
after implementing it for over a 100 years,
something was wrong. It was also convinced
that where a dog had to be killed because
it was overly aggressive or suspected to be
rabid, the killing must be done in a more
humane manner.
In the nineteen fifties, the most commonly
seen message in India was the one on family
planning and it was, therefore, no quantum
leap in thinking that led to them proposing,
in 1964, a more humane and viable solution
to prevent the visible increase in the
number of street dogs and the number of
cases of human rabies was by a sustained
catch-and-neuter programme coupled with
vaccination against rabies. It decided to call
the programme the Animal Birth Control
programme or the ABC programme to show
that the control of the street dog population
was as easy as ABC.
At a certain population density the birth
33
rate and the death rate become equal,
the population comes to an equilibrium,
population growth levels off. This more
realistic description of population growth is
referred to as logistic growth. The upper limit
at which population growth levels off is called
the carrying capacity of the environment.
Each habitat has a specific carrying capacity
for each species. This specific carrying
capacity essentially depends on the
availability, distribution and quality of the
resources (shelter, food, water) for the species
concerned. The density of a population of
higher vertebrates (including dogs) is almost
always near the carrying capacity of the
environment. Any reduction in population
density through additional mortality is
rapidly compensated by better reproduction
and survival. In other words, when dogs
are removed, the survivors’ life expectancy
increases because they have better access to
the resources, and there is less competition for
resources.2 3 4
In most cases, this source was a garbage
dump and many of the dogs around these
places were emaciated and mangy. In the
meantime, from an average of less than one
dog per day in 1860, the number of dogs
killed by the Corporation went upto as high as
135 dogs per day in 1995.
Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the
same thing over and over again expecting
different results. The age-old method of catchand-kill has not worked and never will.
It was in 1995 that the Blue Cross was finally
able to get the Corporation of Madras to
agree to try out ABC as an alternate to killing
in a part of South Madras. We realised that
a city-wide ABC programme would have
been the ideal solution but the Corporation
Commissioner, Mr. M. Abul Hassan, asked us
to start the programme and then increase
its scope. The only assurances he gave us
was that he would personally monitor the
programme and that no dog which had been
spayed and vaccinated would be caught.
Dogs in the area not covered by the ABC
programme would continue to be caught and
killed by electrocution. The total cost of the
34
programme was to be met by the Blue Cross.
Chennai and Jaipur were the first cities to
start sustained ABC-AR programmes. Within
six months, results in the areas covered
by the Blue Cross ABC programme were
promising enough to prompt the Corporation
to extend the programme to the whole of
South Madras. By a stroke of luck, Mr. Abul
Hassan became the Special Officer - equal to
Mayor - of the Corporation. People for Animals
agreed to take up ABC in North Madras and
the Corporation converted its electrocution
chamber to an ABC centre.
Several cities have taken up ABC but in many
cases it has not been a sustained programme
or aggressive enough. In many places where
the ABC programme was being implemented,
local municipalities suddenly ordered the
destruction of dogs on a massive scale in a
knee-jerk reaction to complaints and the dogs
destroyed were usually the ones that had
been spayed and vaccinated at great expense
and effort.
The World Health Organisation-sponsored
multi centric study of rabies in India for
the period 1993 to 2002 showed that the
incidence of human rabies cases in India was
more or less at the same level during this
period at about 17,000 cases per year 7 8 . Yet,
where ever an ABC-AR programme was being
implemented, rabies cases are down sharply.
The purpose of the ABC programme is to
bring down the number of street dogs in a
humane manner and, more importantly, to
bring down the number of cases of rabies.
To see whether this has been a success, let
us look at the cases of human rabies in three
places where the ABC-AR programme has
been implemented (fig 1 and 2).
From the population management point of
view, all visitors to Chennai will certainly not
fail to notice the relative absence of street
dogs compared to the situation even just five
years ago and to conditions in other cities in
India.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Figures courtesy Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Government of Tamil Nadu except for 2003 given by the
Corporation of Chennai 2004 figure given by Dr . Manivasan, Deputy Commissioner (Health), Chennai Corporation at
the Seminar on “Roadmap for Rabies Free India” at Chennai Aug 2006 and for 2008 given by Dr. B. Kuganatham, Health
Officer, Chennai Corporation, to Times of India on June 9, 2009. Report on page 10
35
From the population management point of
view, all visitors to Chennai will certainly not
fail to notice the relative absence of street
dogs compared to the situation even just five
years ago and to conditions in other cities in
India.
That ABC-AR does indeed work and is the
only solution to the street dog issue is
beyond doubt. What is now needed is the
co-operation of the local municipalities
and corporations to implement it properly.
The Chennai of Corporation has been a
trend setter and shown the way to other
municipalities and local bodies.
It is also most heartening that the
Government of India’s Ministry of
Environment and Forests has now released
the information that it is working with the
Ministries of Health and Family Welfare and
also the Department of Animal Husbandry
to take up the ABC-AR programme in a most
aggressive way by strictly implementing the
ABC Rules of 2001 while at the same time
going in for an oral anti-rabies vaccine to
make India rabies-free within a few years. The
National Workshop at Delhi organized by Maj
Gen Dr. R. M. Kharb, Chairman of the AWBI on
September 21 and 22, 2006 was unanimous
in asking for a strict implementation of the
existing ABC Rules including the sections on
registration of dog breeders.
However, we do not have the luxury of time.
Newer methods of less invasive surgery;
same-day release; better training of veterinary
surgeons and the search for non-surgical
methods have recently received a great fillip.
The Found Animals Foundation are offering
substantial grants for this purpose. World
Veterinary Services of the UK and Vets Beyond
Borders of Australia are running training
programmes in India. Many NGOs in India are
offering subsidised spay-neuter services and
the Government of India through the Animal
Welfare Board of India is setting up publicprivate partnerships with local municipal
bodies to make them take up this programme.
With the proposed Dog Registration and
Breeding Rules and the Pet Shop Rules, the
major reason for new animals being added to
the streets will be vastly reduced if these rules
can be effectively enforced.
References
1. Bogel, K, and Hoyt, J.A. 1990:
Guidelines for Dog Population
Management - WHO and WSPA
2. Beck, A.M., 1973: The ecology of stray dogs:
a study of free-ranging urban animals. York
Press, Baltimore.
3. Beck, A.M., 1975: The ecology of feral and
36
free roving dogs in Baltimore. In M.W. Fox
(ed.) : The Wild Canids, p. 380 – 390. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
4. Fox, M.W., Beck, A.M., and Blackman,
E., 1975: Behavior and ecology of a small
group of urban dogs (Canis familiaris).
Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1, 119 – 137.
5. Madras Musings, December 16-31, 2002.
6. Dr. M. Jayachandra Rao, Chief Health
Officer, Bangalore City Corporation,
Bangalore - National seminar on
Intradermal Rabies Vaccination,
Proceedings. 25th February 2003: Effective
management of rabies.
7. “National Multi Centric Rabies Survey ”
- report presented by Dr. M. K. Sudarshan
at the 5th National Conference on
Prevention of Rabies at Bhubaneshwar on
5th and 6th July, 2003.
8. Assessing Burden of Rabies in India, WHOsponsored National Multi-Centric Rabies
Survey, Final Report – May 2004.
9. Reece, J.F. and Chawla, S.K. – “Control of
rabies in Jaipur, India, by the sterilization
and vaccination of neighbourhood dogs”
– The Veterinary Record, September 16,
2006.
10.Appaji Rao, Dr.V.N., Road map to a rabiesfree India, AWBI, July 2006.
37
Dganit Ben-Dov
SHELTER
MANAGEMENT
A review of the situation worldwide
38
Introduction
Shelter management is a
term that can relate to different areas. I want
to emphasize two correlated major aspects:
the policy of receiving dogs to the shelter
(“input”) and the policy for removal from
the shelter (“output”) - giving to adoption,
euthanasia or kipping them for life.
It is very important to have a consistent and
clear policy, since the input and the output of
living creature into the shelter are integrated
and affect each other. The resources and
the capacity of the shelters are limited and
keeping too many dogs can lead to severe
welfare problems, health hazards and
implications on the trust the public have. I will
refer to both NGO`s shelters and municipal
pounds as `shelters`, and differentiate when
needed.
Seemingly there is a basic difference between
management of a public-governmental or
municipal pound, that is obliged to receive all
the captured dogs under the main objective
of saving public health and the management
of a voluntarily determined agenda, usually
to promote animal welfare. But, in the last
decades the public concern for the fate of the
impounded dogs, in both types of shelters,
makes them more and more alike.
A major obstacle in reviewing the “Shelter
Management” situation worldwide is a lake
of knowledge, especially regarding the
public-governmental or municipal pounds.
An example for that we can see in the survey
conducted by WSPA and IRSPCA in 2007:
Thirty-four animal welfare groups operating in
thirty countries … responded to a questionnaire
on the control of stray dogs and cats in their
country … and municipal or veterinary
authorities in five countries… 1
Similarly, a web search reveals a lot of
information about animal rescue shelters
(mostly in the USA2), but almost none about
the public pounds. The lack of reliable
information implies that the available
statistics is biased.
Policy for removal from the shelter (Output policy)
The controversial and
significant ethical question - whether to
euthanatize dogs is the base that reflects all
management aspects.
The background for the decision is mostly an
emotional one, and a cost-benefit analysis
(concerning welfare or financial aspects) is
rarely conducted3.
Shelter management that does not include
39
euthanizing healthy animals has always been
there. Most operators were private people
that were aware to the fact that they gave
answer, and life, to those animals under their
care, not an answer to the whole problem of
overpopulation, strays and abandoned dogs.
The majority of the shelters, the “conventional”
ones, euthanized high percent of the
impounded dogs.
In the 80`s and 90`s the “No-kill” perspective
achieved a dip grasp in the public awareness
and later influenced politicians and public
policy makers. A process that was followed by
more finance support given to the allegedly
more humane shelters. One important “side
effect” of this process was a remarkable
decrease in numeral reports of the various
shelters.
No-kill shelters, called “You-kill shelters” by
their opponents, cannot answer the entire
dog overpopulation problem, which actual
size is unclear. There are estimations that 3-9
million dogs and cats are being euthanized
in the USA every year4, hundreds millions
worldwide.
Some data implies that euthanasia rates are
dropping due to campaigns increasing public
awareness, an increase in the percentage
of spayed and neutered dogs, and an
increase of the number and availability of
shelters and NGO`s (shortening the time an
abandoned dog is in the street and raising it`s
adoptability). According to the AHA – more
than 50% of dogs that enter animal shelters
in the USA are euthanized. 15% of dogs are
reunited with their owners and 25% are
adopted5.
The most convincing critique toward the
“conventional” policy, to my opinion, is that
routine euthanasia may send wrong message
to the public: a simple solution and disrespect
for animal lives6. (It is important to state that it
may be a simple solution for dog owners how
don’t want their dog any more. It’s certainly
not an easy thing to do for the shelter
employees7).
As said before, many shelters do euthanize
dogs. The minimal time for kipping them can
be derived from mandatory legislation, or
shelters policy. In some pounds the minimal
time by the policy is the animal length of stay,
usually due to budget limits.
Other shelters make their policy decisions
on the base of the dogs` adoptability (age,
health, breed, size, color8), time spent in the
shelter, behavior, ext.
When euthanasia is performed, the shelter
should have strict guidelines concerning
the process. Euthanasia should be done by a
skilled and compassionate person.
Differences regarding the adoption process
• Evaluation and selecting potential adopters
– there is a constant dilemma between
the wish to re-home as many dogs as
possible and the fear that the dogs will not
be treated properly. Every family that will
40
leave the shelter without adopting a dog
will impair the availability of place for other
dogs entering the shelter and increase the
need for euthanasia. On the other hand,
unsuitable adoption might end with re-
abundance of dogs and if she is not spayed
– giving birth to more puppies.
• Some shelters have adoption coordinators
and trainer who work with the dogs and
those who come to adopt. It costs, but has
an incredible influence on successful rehoming rates. Having stuff that work daily
with the dogs, training, socializing and
grooming, also have good influence on the
potential of successful re-homing.
• Mandatory spay and neuter of all dogs
before living the shelter is crucial. Most
western countries NGO`s do so. Some
will charge in advance and trust the new
owner to spay the dog, especially regarding
young puppies, since early age spay/neuter
is not acceptable by all veterinarians. In
shelters with high euthanasia rate, an
additional question arise – whether to spay
in advance, knowing that not all dogs will
be adopted, or only after adoption. Some
potential adopters might have difficulties
coming again to take the dog after being
spayed and some can be backed away from
taking home a recently operated dog.
• Rabies vaccination and microchiping of
the dogs prior to leaving the shelter are
another parameter that can improve the
dogs` chance for good adoption.
Policy for receiving dogs to the shelter (input policy)
The policy for receiving dogs
to the shelter is closely associated to the
“output” policy of the shelter. Availability of
room for more dogs is limited when healthy
dogs are not euthanized.
that might be caring diseases, have different
behavioral problems, including aggression
and, in the same time - having responsibility
toward owners and being susceptible to legal
charges.
Many No-kill shelters will condition
acceptance of dogs on the owner`s will to pay,
on the dog`s adoptability, or on the base of
free place.
“Open door” shelters accept everyone in need,
but face the necessity to euthanize many9
and a growing criticism and disapproval from
the public and politicians10.
Public governmental or municipal pounds
face another challenge – receiving dogs
from the streets, dogs with unknown history
41
Holding period
There are professional
guidelines determining the proper treatment
given to dogs in shelters, ether on the web11
or `hard copy` manuals.
Recommendations for routine daily
care, cleaning and disinfection, density,
parasite Control, disease management and
vaccination protocols – are available, and
periodic training and continuing education
should be performed. A typical problem for
shelters` employees is profession-fatigue
and frustration. Emotional and psychological
support is recommended.
while group holding is better for long term
holding.
Group holding is similar to dogs` natural
behavior and give better answer to their
needs. But, the disadvantage of this way
is that in the long run it is more difficult to
manage these dogs and the human dog
bond is much harder to achieve. Another
disadvantage might be a compromise of
recessive dogs` welfare.
The length of stay of dogs is influencing their
holding in the shelter. For short term holding
one to two dogs in one cage is preferred,
And some information about shelter management
in Israel
Demography: area – 22,140 km2 (with the
territories - ~28,000) , humane population7.7 million in 1.7 million households.
There is at list one dog in about 18% of the
households.
Since 2005 the Dog Registration and Control
Law-2002 is in force. All dogs must be
microchiped, and reported to central data
base operated by the veterinary cervices of
42
the Ministry of Agriculture. 436,734 registered
dogs12 (we assume that 10-20% are dead but
not reported). 61% of the females are spayed,
24% of the males – neutered.
License for dogs is mandatory, and renewed
annually. The license fee is regrecive – 49.5
NIS (~10 euro) for spayed or neutered dog,
140.5 NIS (~28 euro) for an intact dog.
Since 2006 abandonment of pets is a felony13.
A stray dog that was impounded should be
kept for at list 10 days.
In Israel there are aprloximaly 40 animal
welfare NGOs, third of them operates a shelter.
Most of them declare to be No-Kill shelter.
Only one states an `Open Door` policy.
Control Law) we see a decline in dog bites,
straying and euthanasia rates.
On 2007-2011 the Ministry of Agriculture
assisted financing of dogs` spaying and
neutering. Almost 20,000 dogs (1/3 males, 2/3
females) were s/n on this operations.
There are 15 municipal pounds, and
since 2005 (mandatory microchiping and
enforcement of the Dog Registration and
Notes and References
1. Tasker, L., 2007 (?), Stray Animal Control
Practices (Europe): A report into the
strategies for controlling stray dog and
cat populations adopted in thirty-one
countries.WSPA and RSPCA International,
p:vii, in:
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_
upload/animalwelfare/WSPA_RSPCA%20
International%20stray%20control%20
practices%20in%20Europe%202006_2007.
pdf
2. as example, you can see the data from
Maddie’s Fund® Annual Report, in:
http://www.maddiesfund.org/About_Us/
Annual_Report.html
3. Frank J., 2004, An Interactive Model of
Human and Companion Animal Dynamics:
The Ecology and Economics of Dog
Overpopulation and the Human Costs of
Addressing the Problem, Human Ecology,
32(1):107-130
4. Wenstrup J. and Dowidchuk A., 1999,
Pet overpopulation: data measurement
issues in shelters, J. Appl. Anim. Welfare
Sci., 2(4):303-19. The American Humane
Association: Animal Shelter Euthanasia, In:
http://www.americanhumane.org/
animals/stop-animal-abuse/fact-sheets/
animal-shelter-euthanasia.html
5. ibid
6. Brestrup Craig, 1992, Disposable Animals:
Ending the Tragedy of Throwaway Pets,
Part One – Companion Animal Welfare
Reconciders, Camino bay books.
7. Mary, T., 2010, Enforced “Hangmen” – The
difficulties and coping of Shelter stuff
members who euthanize dogs and cats,
Animals and society, 42:25-33
8. In my experience, being a medium size,
short hair, black female dog – ment having
very low chance for adoption
9. See, as example: http://www.
opendoorshelters.org/
43
10.In Israel, the Tel-Aviv ISPCA is the only
shelter that has an open door policy and
admit euthanizing almost half of the
accepted pets. On march 18th 2011, there
will be a big demonstration in front it`s
gates, under the title “Re-education to the
ISPCA” demanding to stop the killing of
innocent pets
11.Maddie’s Fund®, Resours Library for Animal
Organizations, in:
http://www.maddiesfund.org/Resource_
Library/For_Animal_Organizations.html
Shelter Medicine Reference Library, in:
http://sheltermedicine.com/shelter-healthportal/reference-library
12.According to the National Dogs
Registration Center in Israel, 5.3.2011
13.The Animal Protection law-1994, clause 2a
14.Miller L.and S. Zawistowski (eds.), 2004,
Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians and
Staff. Blackwell Publishing.
15.www.humanesociety.org
16.Marsh, P., Replacing Myth with Math: Using
Evidence-Based Programs to Eradicate
Shelter Overpopulation. Concord, New
Hampshire January, 2010
http://www.shelteroverpopulation.org/
44
17.Chapter 1 - Replacing Myth with
Math: Using Data to Design Shelter
Overpopulation Programs
http://www.shelteroverpopulation.org/
SOS_Chapter-1.pdf
18.Chapter 6 - VII. Evidence-Based Shelter
Admission Policies, in: Humane Societies
and Rescue Groups
http://www.shelteroverpopulation.org/
SOS_Chapter-6.pdf
19.Building Evidence-Based Programs to
Eradicate Shelter Overpopulation
http://www.shelteroverpopulation.org/
SOS_Chapter-6.pdf
www.maddiesfund.org
(all accessed – 25.2.11 - 5.3.2011)
Jack Reece
ALTERNATIVE METHODS
OF STERILISATION
45
Introduction
Animal Birth Control (ABC)
programmes depend on sterilisation of
dogs to render the animals permanently
incapable of breeding. Traditionally this has
been achieved through surgical removal of
genital organs. There are however a number
of different techniques and approaches which
could be used.
Chemical sterilisation.
Several approaches are possible.
Immuno-sterilisation. Immuno-sterilisation,
using the body’s immune response to achieve
sterility, has effectively been achieved in some
species by vaccinating females against some
component in the process of reproduction
in effect creating an auto-immune
reaction . Vaccines have targeted GnRH
(Gonadatrophin Releasing Hormone), which
control reproductive hormone production
in the brain, and also ova zona pellucida
(ZP) which interferes with the process of
fertilisation by spermatozoa of the ovulated
ovum. Vaccination to prevent reproduction
requires minimal interference, has few
welfare problems, may be cheaper than other
methods and should be easier to reach the
target proportion of sterilised animals.
The immuno-sterilisation of dogs has
proved challenging in part because of the
physiology and endocrinology of this species.
The vaccines used have been found to
cause severe reactions in the dog. In other
species lasting immunity for life has only
been achieved with two doses of vaccine.
Single dose vaccination has given immunity
46
of shorter duration. Given the short lifespan
of street dogs (2) this may not be a great
concern. Work is continuing and if successful
immuno-sterilisation should be a very
considerable help to street dog population
management. (3, 4).
Hormonal. It is possible to control bitch
reproduction by administering hormones
to interfere with normal oestrous cycles.
However this method has long term health
implications for the dog and requires regular
administration of the drugs. Currently the
use of hormones to alter reproductive
performance in dogs is limited to special
circumstances in companion animals.
Atrophying Agents. Zinc gluconate is marketed
(Esterisol) as an intra-testicular injection
the effects of which are to cause atrophy of
the testicular tissues. This is claimed to be a
quick, simple way to cause male sterility while
maintaining behaviour patterns and does not
have the surgical risks and welfare problems
associated with surgical castration. The
concerns expressed above on a male centred
approach remain. If these concerns can be
addressed this agent could be a useful tool in
street dog population programmes.
Surgical Sterilisation.
Male castration. This is performed under
general anaesthesia and is the complete
removal of testicles and associated structures.
This is the simplest surgical sterilisation
technique. Limited surgical skill is required.
Castrating adult males may not change their
behaviour. It is claimed to be quick and free
from complication. The concerns about the
effectiveness of a male centred approach
remain.
Male vasectomy. This is the removal or
ligation of a piece of the vas deferens and
is performed under general anaesthesia.
The technique is simple though more
demanding than castration. Vasectomised
males will continue to show sexual behaviour.
The incision length is shorter than that for
castration.
Females sterilisation (spay). The common
approach is ovariohysterectomy by
conventional surgery. However ovariectomy
is also possible. Both techniques are also
possible laproscopically (5) Ligation or
resection of Fallopian tubes is ill-advised
in dogs due to the risk of endometrial
hyperplasia and pyometra arising from
presence of ovarian hormones. The
surgical approach to ovariohysterectomy
or ovariectomy may be either mid-line
through the linea alba or through a flank
incision. Each approach has advantages and
disadvantages unique to the approach. The
surgical approach with which the surgeon is
familiar is commonly held to be the best. It is
claimed that ovariectomy can be performed
through smaller incisions and in less time than
ovariohysterectomy. There is no greater risk of
further pathology from either ovariectomy or
ovariohysterectomy.
Surgical sterilisation of bitches requires
general anaesthesia, long term analgesia
and has risks associated with both surgery
and anaesthesia. The surgical techniques
of female sterilisation require more skill
than sterilisation surgery in males because
of the abdominal location of the ovaries.
Laparoscopic surgery requires considerable
experience (6). The equipment required is
also very expensive and requires power. The
expense is such as to preclude adoption of
this method in most circumstances involving
street dogs. All types of surgical sterilisation
are expensive compared to non-surgical
methods (7). Levels of experience and
training in surgery in veterinary surgeons
in developing countries may limit the
application of surgical sterilisation unless
further training is available.
The immunological response to concomitant
vaccination against rabies at the time of
surgery is unaffected by the stress of surgery
(8).
47
Conclusions
The development of a
reliable, one dose immuno-contraceptive
vaccine would seem to represent the best
possible means of large scale fertility control
on dog populations. Surgical techniques are
the current best practice. However, all surgical
techniques require training and expertise
in surgery, and are expensive. Surgical
techniques have inherent unavoidable
risks and welfare considerations requiring
analgesia.
References
1. Hiby, L.R., Reece, J.F. et al Roaming dog
population surveys in three Rajasthani cities,
India. (2011) In Press.
2. Chawla, S.C., Reece, J.F. Veterinary Record
(2002) 150 450-451.
3. Fayrer-Hosken, R, Dookwah, H.D. et al
Animal Reproduction Science (2000) 60-61
365-373.
4. Anon. Immunocontraceptive approaches
to sterilisation in dogs and cats. Report
of Scientific Think Tank. ACCD November
2009.
5. Howe, L.M. Theriogenology (2006) 66 500509.
6. Davidson, E.B., Moll, H.D. et al Veterinary
Surgery (2004) 33 62-69.
7. Carroll, M.J., Singer, A. et al Wildlife
Research (2010) 37 676-687.
48
8. Fischer, S.M., Quest, C.M. et al. JAVMA
(2007) 230 52-57.
James Serpell
HUMAN-DOG
RELATIONSHIPS WORLDWIDE
49
Introduction
A systematic assessment of
local relationships with, and attitudes toward,
dogs should be an essential part of any dog
management program (Constable et al., 2010).
Individual and cultural attitudes toward, and
beliefs about, dogs will certainly influence
both the number and distribution of dogs in
a given area, as well as affecting patterns of
dog ownership and restraint, levels of care
versus neglect or abuse, the acceptability of
particular control measures, the willingness
of people to touch or handle dogs, and
opportunities for exposure to zoonotic
disease. Failure to take account of such
relationships, attitudes and norms may limit
the success of even the most well-organized
and funded management programs. In
addition, in the absence of this type of
baseline evaluation, it will be impossible to
determine whether a given management
program has beneficial or detrimental longterm effects on local dog-related attitudes
and values.
Any attempt to summarize (in five pages or
less) human-dog relationships on a global
scale risks being accused of oversimplification.
Globally, relationships between humans and
the species, Canis familiaris, are complex and
may vary along a broad continuum. At the
extreme positive end of this continuum lies
a country such as Sweden with an estimated
dog population of close to 1 million and a
human population of just over 9 million.
Eighty-five per cent of Swedish dogs are
purebred and are registered with the Swedish
Kennel Club, and approximately 80% carry
private health insurance. Due to strong
cultural opposition to non-medical surgical
sterilization, the majority of Swedish dogs
are reproductively intact. Yet apparently
there is no surplus of dogs in Sweden, and
stray or free-roaming dogs are virtually
unheard of (Malm, 2007). At the opposite
50
extreme lies South Korea where dogs are
traditionally viewed as food animals. They are
mass-produced on a commercial scale, and
can be purchased alive or pre-slaughtered
and butchered in urban meat markets for
consumption at home or in specialized
‘dog meat’ restaurants (Podberscek, 2009).
In between these two poles, a vast array of
dog-human relationships exists characterized
by different degrees economic exploitation,
social interaction and intimacy, and attitudes
and values.
Even when people’s interactions with
domestic dogs within a single country or
region are considered, significant variation
often exists (see e.g. Westgarth et al., 2008),
and this variability is obviously compounded
as the range of different cultures and
communities increases. Furthermore, while
there have been numerous studies of humandog attitudes and interactions in a handful
of ‘developed’ countries, few comparable
investigations have been conducted in socalled ‘developing’ nations, thereby making
it hard to generalize cross-culturally. With
these provisos in mind, this paper will explore
some of the key features of human-dog
relationships that may be helpful to consider
from the perspective of dog population
management.
The value of dogs
In general terms, human
relations with dogs (and other animals)
appear to be governed by two fundamental
and separate value orientations: Affect - that is,
people’s affective and/or emotional responses
to dogs, and Utility - people’s perceptions
of the practical, economic or instrumental
value of dogs, either to themselves or the
community as a whole (Serpell, 2004).
As shown in Figure 1, each of these
dimensions can be represented as a
continuum between positive and negative
poles, and any dog, or population or group of
dogs, can be imagined as lying somewhere
within this two-dimensional space depending
on the relative strength and valence of the
affect and utility considerations it evokes.
For example, an ownerless, free-roaming dog
in a rabies-prone area of China could be said
to have negative Utility value, while a working
Border Collie in the Scottish Highlands would
likely be viewed as having positive value on
the same dimension. Similarly, a dog living
as a pet in a Manhattan apartment is likely to
valued highly on the Affect dimension (at least
by its owner), whereas an identical dog living
on the streets Baghdad or Mogadishu (or any
predominantly Muslim city) is likely to inspire
negative affect in the majority of people it
encounters.
Fig. 1: Hypothetical Affect and
Utility value orientations to
dogs.
51
Although they arise independently, these two
dimensions are not independent in terms of
their effects on people’s relationships with
dogs. For instance, human-dog relationships
based on positive affect (sympathy or
identification) typically entail certain
moral obligations that may prevent these
animals from being otherwise exploited for
purposes that harm them. Euthanasia, for
example, is sometimes the most practical
and humane solution to the problem of
surplus and unwanted dogs, but in some
countries it is effectively outlawed due to
the public’s positive affective valuation of
dogs (Slater et al., 2008). Not surprisingly,
positive instrumental value as hunting aides
or property guardians is often associated with
more positive affective evaluations of dogs
(Knobel et al., 2008; Serpell, 1995). However,
when dogs are used for economic purposes
that involve harming or killing them (cf. dog
eating), this usually precludes them from
becoming the objects of people’s positive
affections (Serpell, 1995, 2004; Podberscek,
2009).
Although affect and utility value orientations
provide a general baseline description of
human attitudes to dogs, they can only
account for a certain proportion of the
variance in people’s attitudes. A dog’s
precise location in the two-dimensional
space described by these two variables will
also depend on a range of other factors
that produce changes primarily in people’s
affective/emotional evaluation of dogs.
The following summary of various attitude
modifiers is intended to be representative
rather than all encompassing. For simplicity,
they are divided into three main categories:
canine attributes, individual human attributes,
and cultural factors.
Canine attributes as attitude modifiers
Dogs obviously vary greatly
in terms of size and type, as well as in habits
and behavior. Humans are sensitive to these
various attributes of particular dogs and
are prone to judging or evaluating them
accordingly. Also, because such attributes are
to some extent intrinsic to the dog, they often
seem to form the initial basis for people’s
attitude discriminations. In many cultures, for
example, particular types or breeds of dog are
valued more highly than others.
In some cases, this may be due to some
useful instrumental characteristic, such as
the dog’s prowess in hunting (e.g. Sloughis
in North Africa or Salukis in Arabia), or it may
be based on purely aesthetic (emotional)
52
responses, such as the European idea of the
‘purebred’ dog being intrinsically superior to
the mixed breed. Aspects of normal canine
behavior also influence people’s affective
responses toward dogs, although pre-existing
cultural prejudices seem to determine which
behaviors are singled out in this regard.
In most western countries, people tend to
focus on positive canine behaviors such
as attachment, fidelity and protectiveness
when describing dogs, although media
attention to less desirable traits, such as
aggression, can shift public opinion quite
rapidly in negative directions (Podberscek,
1994). In many Asian and African countries,
and the indigenous people of Australia,
attention tends to be focused on canine
habits that would be prohibited or viewed
with disgust if performed by a person: e.g.
sexual and eliminative behavior in public
places, promiscuity, incest, consumption of
carrion and human waste, and so on. Dogs
often serve as potent symbols of moral
degeneration and depravity in these regions,
and may be considered ritually ‘unclean’
for this reason (Serpell, 1995, 1996; Smith &
Litchfield, 2009).
Individual value orientations
A growing body of literature
has begun to document the sources of
individual differences in people’s affective
evaluations of dogs and other animals. One
of the more important factors to emerge
from multiple studies is the effect of gender,
although effect sizes are fairly modest and the
direction of the effect appears to be culturally
determined. In the majority of western
societies, women appear to display more
positive affective responses to animals and to
be more concerned about their welfare than
men (Herzog, 2000, 2007; Hills 1993; Kellert
& Berry, 1980; Pifer et al., 1994; Serpell, 2004,
2005; Wells & Hepper, 1995; Bjerke et al. 1998;
Galvin & Kruse, 1999; Paul, 2000).
In relation to dogs, however, gender effects
are less consistent with several studies
reporting that men display more favorable
views of dogs than women, especially in
developing countries (Al-Fayez et al., 2003;
Hsu et al., 2003; Knobel et al., 2008; Morris,
1998). Relatively negative views of dogs
among women may reflect understandable
safety concerns about the disproportionate
danger to women and children posed by
free-roaming dogs (Boyd et al., 2004; George
& Adesiyun, 2008). Gender may also influence
attitudes to dog control measures, such as
surgical sterilization, although again the
findings tend to be inconsistent (Blackshaw &
Day, 1994; Fielding, Samuels & Mather, 2002).
With respect to animals in general, young
adults tend to exhibit more positive feelings
than seniors, although this is probably an
age-cohort rather than a maturational effect.
Higher levels of education also tend predict
more positive regard for animals (Kellert
& Berry, 1980), as does income and urban
versus rural residence (Kellert & Berry, 1980;
Bjerke et al. 1998; Reading et al., 1999).
The effects of most of these variables have
not been investigated in any detail in nonwestern societies, and those that have give
inconsistent results (e.g. Ortega-Pacheco et al.,
2007).
For example, a recent study in Tanzania
found more positive attitudes to dogs
among rural compared with urban residents,
probably because of the instrumental
importance of dogs as livestock guardians
in rural communities (Knobel et al., 2008).
Several studies have found that religious
53
conservatism and frequent attendance
at religious services are linked to more
materialistic and less affectionate attitudes to
animals (Bowd & Bowd, 1989; Kellert & Berry,
1980). It is not known, however, whether this
applies also to relationships with dogs.
Childhood exposure to close or familial
relationships with dogs appears to predispose
people to develop a lifelong affection for
these animals. While most studies of this
phenomenon have been conducted in
western countries (Paul 2000; Paul & Serpell,
1993; Serpell & Paul 1994; Serpell, 1986),
similar findings have also been reported in
Japan and Taiwan (Hsu et al, 2003; Miura et
al., 2002), and it is possible that such effects
are widespread globally. In Taiwan, exposure
to household dogs during childhood strongly
predicted adult dog ownership (odds ratio:
8.42), and people also tended to keep their
own dogs the same way that their parents
kept them–e.g. outdoors only vs. free access
indoors and out, restrained vs. unrestrained,
and so on (Hsu et al., 2003).
either current or former pet owners. Similarly,
in a study of veterinary students, Serpell
(2005) found that childhood dog ownership
not only predicted caring attitudes to animals
in general but also professional choices
regarding the types of animals students
wished to work with in future.
Such findings suggest that the experience
of keeping particular dogs as companions,
and the formation of strong social bonds
with them, is likely to promote greater
identification and sympathy for dogs in
general and more pronounced concern for
their welfare (Myers, 2007; Robertson et al.,
2004). It is, however, difficult to isolate the
direct formative influence of early canine
exposure from the possible confounding
effects of cultural factors, and/or parental
attitudes when interpreting such findings
(Ascione 1993; Paul & Serpell 1993).
These postulated effects of childhood dog
keeping have important implications for
the treatment of dogs in general. Lockwood
(2005) has noted that animal protection
supporters and activists in the USA are usually
Cultural views of canines
Culturally-transmitted values,
beliefs and norms exert a strong influence
on individual attitudes and behavior toward
animals (Myers & Russell, 2003). Substantial
cross-cultural differences in attitudes to dogs
are well documented in the literature (Kellert,
1993; Serpell 1995; Shuxian et al., 2005; Morris,
1998), and it is clear that these animals carry
54
quantities of cultural and symbolic baggage
that greatly influence how people regard
them and treat them. These cultural factors
include historical attitudes, religious and
ideological beliefs and values, and various
culture-defining practices.
Historical analyses of people’s attitudes to
animals suggest that, although attitudes
change gradually over time, they may also
persist long after they have ceased to be
culturally or practically relevant. In many
developing countries vast rural-urban
migrations have taken place in just the
last 30-40 years, and this has left many in
the current generation with rural attitudes
and behavior that are out of place in urban
and suburban environments. In Taiwan, for
instance, traditional rural communities have
a positive but laissez faire attitude to dogs
that serve primarily as watchdogs and live
outdoors. The recent rural exodus into towns
and cities has transplanted these kinds of
relationships with dogs into urban living
spaces with disastrous results. Confined to
small houses and apartments without regular
access to the outside, such dogs tend to
develop behavior problems such as house
soiling and destructiveness, which then leads
their owners to abandon them on the street
or in public parks (Hsu et al., 2003).
although such considerations may be
overridden by instrumental factors (Knobel
et al., 2008; Menache, 1997). In Tanzania,
Muslim households are less likely to own
dogs than non-Muslim households, but
only in the absence of livestock. In livestock
owning Muslim households, the value of dogs
as guardians apparently overrides religious
concerns (Knobel et al., 2008).
Dogs may also acquire peculiar significance
through their association with various culturedefining practices or rituals. The reluctance
in several Asian countries to discontinue
the practice of dog-eating, despite strong
opposition from non dog-eating nations,
is usually based on centuries-old cultural
traditions of eating dog meat. Unfortunately,
foreign opposition to this culture-defining
practice may excite nationalistic sentiments
that tend to reinforce the original attitudes
and behavior (Podberscek, 2009; Shuxian et
al., 2005).
Religious beliefs have a significant impact
on people’s relationships with dogs. Under
Ultra-orthodox Judaism or Islam, dogs are
considered ‘unclean’ and touching one results
in defilement. Consequently, dogs tend to
be less numerous and less well-treated in
Muslim and orthodox Jewish communities,
Conclusion
Our understanding of the human factors
that contribute to dog population problems
would benefit greatly from well-designed
cross-cultural studies of human relationships
with dogs, and the attitudes, beliefs and
values that underpin these relationships.
The development of appropriate methods to
access this kind of information from people
of widely different linguistic, educational and
cultural backgrounds represents a significant
challenge, but it is an achievable goal and one
that would amply repay the effort involved.
The development of a set of standardized
instruments for measuring attitudes to dogs
and dog-related issues cross-culturally would
also provide valuable tools for focusing dog
55
control efforts where they will have the most
beneficial impact, and for monitoring progress
in dog population management.
Although it seems to fit with existing
evidence, the basic, two-dimensional,
affect and utility model of human attitudes
proposed in this paper is hypothetical and
needs to be field tested, both to confirm its
56
general validity, and to determine whether its
two constituent dimensions can be reliably
measured. Hopefully, future studies of
variation in attitudes to dogs both within and
between human cultures and subgroups will
help to clarify its heuristic and practical value.
Kate Blaszak
WORLDWIDE SUMMARY ON
POLICY AND LEGISLATION FOR DOG
POPULATION MANAGEMENT
57
Definitions, context and existing reviews
Dog Population Management
is a concern for many governments and is
aligned with their social and health goals
with high potential for engagement of
other sectors, particularly local government,
tourism, urban planning and environment.
The OIE (2007) commissioned international
research on methods of dog control that
would partly infer DPM policy, but only 20% of
members responded (and were not reported
by country). This paper will review worldwide
DPM policy and legislation in general themes
with specific examples to demonstrate
relevant learnings and requirement for a
consultative, evidence based, comprehensive
and engaging policy solution suitable to the
local context. Recent developments in policy,
suggested legal provisions, research and
innovations will also be presented.
It is important to firstly define and
contextualise policy and legislation for dog
population management (DPM) worldwide.
Policy may be defined1 as ‘a course or
principle of action adopted or proposed by
a government, party, business or individual’.
It stems from the Greek and Latin terms
meaning evidence, proof and demonstrate
respectively. Governments theoretically
represent their constituents and their
best interests, and are thus obliged to be
informed of the specific community attitudes,
cultural, health and wider societal issues
balancing these with safety, environment
and animal welfare to determine evidence
based, effective and sustainable DPM
policy. However, in reality, Governments are
historically reactive to disease outbreaks,
crises, pending international events, media
and related public perceptions, resulting often
in initial ineffectual, inappropriate and often
inhumane DPM policy based on insufficient
evidence. Dedicated Dog Population
Management (aka Domestic Animal, Urban
58
Animal Management, Dog Control) legislation
usually backstops key policy initiatives and
ideally establishes in an Act, a fundamental
framework of legal principles with defined
parameters and responsibilities often detailed
in Regulations for pet ownership, breeding
and selling, abandonment, stray animals and
stray collection, possibly dangerous dogs.
Dedicated DPM legislation and can exist at
various levels of government, sometimes well
co-ordinated, other times at cross purposes.
Examples of DPM law at levels of National,
State (Australia, US, some states of Brazil,
others), Municipal (eg Australia, Malaysia,
Thailand, Beijing), even village Bylaws or
Decrees exist (eg. Colombia, Costa Rica). Most
countries refer to dogs as ‘property’ (even
directly as in Sweden and Germany with
homeless dogs considered under The Lost
Property Acts) which raises questions about
the intent of the law. Countries that have
inactive or no dedicated DPM legislation, may
only have preliminary legal provisions for
dog control in animal health, public health or
rabies related legislation, which often leads to
reactive, inhumane and ineffectual culling of
dogs.
Components of DPM have also been
embedded in the animal welfare legislation of
some countries. Out of 30 target countries
studied by WSPA2, the breeding of dogs for
commercial sale is regulated (to some degree)
in the national animal welfare legislation
of 7; Tanzania, Japan, Philippines, Korea,
Bolivia, Costa Rica and Turkey, with additional
components of registration, shelters and
‘Trap Neuter Release’ birth control in the
latter, and only3 more with provisions for
dog breeding in separate legislation. On
wider review, countries may or may not have
complimentary Prevention of Cruelty or
modern Animal Welfare legislation, the latter
with a fundamental principle of ‘duty of care’
which is better aligned to support owner and
public responsibility for dogs. Similarly, the
2010 OIE terrestrial animal health code,
chapter 7.7 Stray Dog Population Control
endorses this central principle in terms of
RPO and changes in human behaviour.
Interestingly, Helms and Bain3 conducted a
survey to establish (in an American urban
context) that the legal designation as owner/
guardian, while not negatively impacting,
was not associated with an enhanced bond
between owner and dog (and possibly
responsibility) for dogs. This may or may not
relate to other contexts and would be worth
researching.
DPM policy may evolve over time and does
not always involve appropriate consultation,
while the development or amendment of
DPM legislation usually requires formal
consultation. DPM legislation may allow
for direct administration by a Government
Department and direction of related income
(via fees, penalties) for policy support, or
more usually into the general cabinet income
pool. It may provide formal powers to other
departments (eg Police, NGOs) and devolution
of responsibilities to municipal bodies, animal
welfare organizations (eg. Hong Kong, India,
Australia, New Zealand, UK, many States of the
US, European community, Palau) and/or subcontracted to private businesses (eg. dogs
shelters/re-homing centres in Taiwan, ‘hygiene
companies’ in some European countries)
depending on their relevance, competency,
government policy and resources available.
Furthermore, additional supporting
Government policy may include research,
public consultation, co-ordination, financial,
training support to those relegated to enforce
the legislation and ideally RPO and bite
prevention education in schools or the
community as modeled by a central policy
bureau 4.
There is also the European convention for the
protection of pet animals (1987)5, entered
into by member states of the EU and any
other country who would wish to be bound
by the terms of the treaty. This is a contractual
obligation between the signatories to ensure
compliance with the terms of the treaty under
their own national legislation and policy.
The ‘Convention’ provides a framework for
promoting the care and welfare of pet animals
including aspects of DPM. For example,
it is prohibited to abandon a pet and the
convention recommends that all animals are
tagged and recorded, and the prevention of
the birth of unwanted young is encouraged
by sterilisation. Countries that signed the
convention are also committed to controlling
populations of homeless animals in a way that
does not cause “unnecessary pain, suffering
or stress”. Most but not all European countries
have signed this convention but may still
fall short of relevant policy, legislation and
compliance as demonstrated by a Stray
animal control practices (Europe) review
20076.
As the only comprehensive review from
any region, it provided findings on DPM
across Europe in 2006 and also compared
the situation since 1999. Summary findings
included:
• 87% of European countries responding (27
countries) had animal protection legislation
and some DPM legal provisions
• Stray control methods varied greatly across
those countries surveyed.
• There was an overall trend for
municipalities to be cited as responsible for
stray collection and processing.
• Source of dogs were reported usually as
either owned and roaming or abandoned
dogs
• No census or population data was
systematically recorded nationally by a
central (government) body for owned or
stray dogs (and cats).
• In countries where dog registration and
licensing were rigorously enforced it
was considered by respondents to be an
essential element in successful stray control
practices.
• Despite compulsory registration and
licensing in 70% (N=22) of countries, in
48% (N=15) of countries animal owners
were not compliant and the authorities did
not enforce the regulations.
• The implantation of a microchip was cited
as the most popular for of identification.
59
• When monitored (N = 6) owner education
schemes were reported to be successful
in changing owner attitudes (4), increased
the likelihood of owners getting their pets
neutered (2) and resulted in a decrease in
the number of stray dogs (1).
Regarding changes since 1999, three
countries introduced new legislation (Belarus,
Bulgaria and most notably Estonia) with
varied success, depending on Government
commitment to enforcement and support.
Those countries with no animal welfare
and no DPM legislation (Albania, Armenia
and Azerbaijan Republic) reported poor
stray control; typified by measures such as
municipal contracted culls, which involved
the shooting of strays and little or no impact
on their increasing stray population.
Finally, from information provided by
case study countries (see theme 4 below)
the report summarized that ‘successful
European stray control appears to be related
to a number of elements - comprehensive,
effective and enforced legislation, registration
and licensing, control of breeding and sale,
environmental management, owner
education and good cooperation between
authorities and animal welfare groups’
Four policy themes, with trends
and examples from around the world
Existing approaches to
DPM vary greatly across the globe and are
considered here in some themes with regard
to their key policy approach, effectiveness
and whether they consider the full problem,
public concerns and their root causes or are
inherently reactive or focus on addressing the
symptoms. In addition, in any case or country
examined below where the dynamic cultural
context is not carefully considered and/
or one prevailing policy is implemented,
there remains a significant unmanaged dog
population.
1. Prevailing culling policy. The prevailing policy
of mass, indiscriminate or sporadic culling
of dogs has been occurring for decades,
even centuries usually without success of
sustainable dog population management.
60
Inhumane culling, usually entrenched in
existing legislation and policy, still occurs
in over 80% of countries in Eastern Asia,
Western Asia, South East Asia, Africa and
Central America, and least is known least
countries in Central Asia and Africa7. Where
reactive, indiscriminate culling prevails, there
is significant evidence that rabies continues to
devastate (China, parts of India, Bali, Flores in
Indonesia, some African countries), other
canine zoonoses remain prevalent, dog
bites continue to debilitate and dog
populations cease to be controlled as the
territory, shelter, water and most importantly
food sources remain and areas are soon
repopulated to carrying capacity.
There are some contextual examples,
especially those with Sharriah law where
roaming dogs (or dogs at all) are simply not
tolerated by the majority of the society. For
example in the Middle East, Turkey, Malaysia
mass or sporadic catching and destruction of
roaming dogs has been the prevailing policy.
In recent years, some of these countries have
progressed to more humane catching and
culling methods on a scale determined to
remove all roaming dogs, ideally combined
with other policy components (eg. parts
of the Middle East). While, this may not be
a particularly palatable policy for certain
stakeholders, in some specific cases it may
remain the most locally acceptable and
humane option. If this public context is not
surveyed and considered prior to Government
policy, uncontrolled dogs roaming on the
streets maybe subjected to greater direct
cruelty by the public. This has been evidenced
in Turkey since the introduction of the
legislation in 20048 (see also Theme 2).
As mentioned, the prevailing policy of culling
(whether humane or inhumane) does not
target the causes and sources of the dog
population and dynamic public attitudes.
Many of these countries are also increasing
pet dog ownership9 and unless policy
combines regulation of dog sources (pet
shops, breeding, markets) and RPO education,
the potential for irresponsible ownership and
abandonment continues to undermine culling
efforts. This has been the case in Malaysia,
which has essentially removed rabies but
continues to have an abandoned pet dog
problem and still systematically culls dogs.
2. Prevailing “Animal Birth Control” (specifically
Catch, Collect or Trap Neuter and Release,
TNR). Over the last two decades, one policy
theme that has expanded through Asia
especially, and also used as a tool in some
cities of the US, Argentina (Buenos Aires),
Europe (eg. Crete, Greece), Samoa, Cook
Islands, Turkey and others is mass Animal
Birth Control (ABC) policy. India nationally
enshrined this ABC policy in the Animal Birth
Control (dogs) Rules 2001 and delegates
funding via local government and the
central Animal Welfare Board of India to
registered animal welfare organisations
to carry out catching, surgical sterilization
and rabies vaccination of dogs. While this
policy has been adopted in many cities
which appear to tolerate roaming dogs, it
has also been plagued by political, financial,
media controversy leading to more internal
regulation yet a lack of resources, strategy
and effective monitoring prevails in most
situations. Localised ABC programmes have
abated mass, indiscriminate culling policy by
governments in many cities and may have
contributed in some circumstances to rabies
reduction and population stabilization over a
decade (Jaipur, Jodphur and possibly Chennai,
other States etc)10. Yet, India still hosts overall,
an uncontrolled dog population and the
highest incidence of rabies in the world.
In short, this prevailing ABC policy is unable
to comprehensively address dog population
management on a scale that is needed for
the safety of the people and dogs in Indian
society and in a number of cases when
children are mauled by dogs the community
and media reacts with uncontrolled violence
towards the dogs, implementing NGO, while
local Government support evaporates.
Thailand and also Sri Lanka, which similarly
appear to accept roaming dogs, have also
promoted a government ABC policy in some
municipalities (also initially without policy on
humane and surgical standards). Systems
of registration also exist, though with
low compliance nor additional tools, and
these examples have again largely failed to
sustainably manage their dog populations.
The main concern with the prevailing ABC
policy approach is that it again focuses on
the symptoms of an uncontrolled dog
population problem - the dogs and in
its common form detracts responsibility
from the community. Without appropriate
consideration of the causes and the
sources of food, dogs, social and economic
context, human behaviour and community
engagement mechanisms as part of the
solution, the policy remains chasing the
symptoms. Returning dogs to the streets
(ideally with community supervision) can
be appropriate when it is known that the
majority of the community accepts dogs on
the street/public areas and does not culturally
61
tolerate euthanasia to any degree. If however,
they do not want dogs on the streets and
TNR is implemented as the prevailing policy,
return of dogs to the street and mass dog
abandonment can compound problems
with reversion to inhumane culling of dogs
evidenced in Turkey11.
ABC with good public engagement,
education, delivery of dogs (where safe,
practical) to increase responsibility and
change behaviours of the community can
be one important tool in a comprehensive
programme (see 4). It can provide
infrastructure that can be transferred to a
more time and resource efficient nonsurgical
sterilization and rabies vaccination approach,
when available. Meanwhile, in India and other
rabies prevalent countries the adoption of
rapid, mass rabies vaccination (as in Tanzania,
now Bali) as a first line policy, combined with
mass bite prevention education should be
considered as a first line policy to further
facilitate DPM.
3. Prohibiting the euthanasia of unwanted
or roaming healthy dogs: ‘No-kill’, mass
shelters. Another theme that is gaining
momentum is a prevailing ‘no-kill’ leading
to ‘mass shelters’ policy. Italy enacted such a
policy in 1991 prohibiting the euthanasia of
unwanted roaming dogs unless with an
incurable disease or proven to be dangerous,
so not completely on welfare grounds. This
legislation (national and various regional)
was implemented along with a registration
scheme, identification, birth control, public
awareness but also an existing large and
ongoing abandonment problem and finite
resources. This no-kill policy has inevitably
led to a rate of entry of dogs to shelters that
outweighed possible adoption rates and
the country has remained plagued with
significant dog welfare concerns now hidden
in permanent mass shelters. Thailand, reflects
a similar policy and concerns (motivated by
the cultural context) as does Gujurat (a Jain
no-kill state of India). San Francisco has an
official no-kill policy and a number of US cities
are apparently progressing gradually towards
this goal (Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia)
motivated by public demand12.
62
In vision, it is desirable to not have to
euthanase unwanted animals but where
the mass sheltering of dogs for life occurs,
it raises significant welfare concerns and
ethical questions, and again focuses on the
symptoms of the dog population problem.
Research13 by Dalla Villa et al in Italy seeks
to determine if good welfare conditions
can be provided in permanent shelters
through kennel management and population
medicine approaches. They study a closed
system, focusing primarily on disease or injury
criteria as indicators of welfare but don’t
systematically monitor the behaviour of the
dogs (often a key reason for abandonment
and inability to re-home dogs). Encouraging
reduction of disease and arguably welfare by
improved management occurred during the
study, though the study did not consider the
costs, availability nor scale of the situation in
relation to feasibility for National application.
In less resourced countries, Government,
private and NGO shelters in Thailand and
Taiwan often do not actively manage these
large populations, with dogs seen breeding,
fighting and even dying in these shelters
(direct evidence 2008, 2010). In contradiction,
some countries with a cultural ‘no-kill’
(Thailand) or just no policy (Laos, Cambodia,
Vietnam) also unofficially and illegally supply
the dog meat trade, unofficially ‘justified’ as a
passive form of DPM.
4. Comprehensive DPM policy with partnership
and public engagement. From the above
themes, a core realization is that no singular,
prevailing DPM policy fits all situations,
all countries. The fourth theme is one that
has been successful to date, demonstrated
with a growing body of outcome based
evidence. This is a comprehensive policy
of partnership with local government,
community engagement, dedicated dog
owner responsibility, applying a toolbox
approach tailored to the cultural context and
source of dogs.
Detailed case studies of successful dog control
in Sweden, Switzerland and Slovenia, refer to
the Stray animal control practices (Europe)
review14. While Germany, Sweden and
Switzerland are fairly well regulated,
educated and wealthy countries it has
not been just money that has lead to the
success of their dog management policy
and legislation as Slovenia also reports
comparatively good DPM. Sweden was an
early signatory of the European Convention
(1989), and with a good registration scheme
now has an Act on the supervision of dogs
and cats, establishing owner responsibilities
(though dedicated for the protection of the
environment according to Government) and
a good registration scheme and leash laws
with high compliance. Dog owners in Sweden
do not routinely sterilize their dogs but they
do understand dog breeding adequately to
prevent unwanted reproduction and puppies.
They have been educated to not allow dogs to
roam and have access to keep the dog fenced
in or indoors at crucial times. Other European
countries with perhaps even better legislation
for abandoned animals (including cats which
are now a problem in Sweden) are Finland,
Netherlands and Switzerland.
Switzerland has had some form of DPM
registration, rehoming legislation for over
60 years which has evolved to now directly
license and educate dog owners. Proposed
dog owners must complete some initial
education on dog behaviour, care and
responsibilities before licensing, and then the
training with the dog(s). Other developed
countries (UK, Australia, New Zealand, US)
to varying degrees, are increasingly underpinned by research, community engagement
and education, to combat significant
numbers of abandoned or surrendered dogs
euthanased each year.
Comprehensive approaches are being trialed
with evidence collection in a number of
developing country cities such as Colombo
in Sri Lanka, Chiang Mai in Thailand,
Zanzibar in Tanzania plus Koh Tao island of
Thailand, others (Palua, Cook Islands) with
successful partnership of local governments,
the community and nongovernmental
organizations. This approach is described
in the ICAM15 Guidance for humane dog
population management and will be
described in detail in my solution paper. In
short ICAM describes a process and various
tools to survey the community and dog
population to understand and define the
problem, design solutions and monitor,
review and refine, underpinned with relevant
legislation based on evidence based policy.
Recent policy developments of particular interest
These successful case
studies, with a paradigm shift towards
human responsibility, are relatively recent
developments where policy and legislation
involves collaboration, consultation,
comprehensive approaches and community
engagement, to maximize compliance to
tackle the causes of what is increasingly
being understood as a people oriented
solution. Other recent developments is
the practice of Onehealth16 principles,
combining multidisciplinary professionals and
approaches to prevent zoonoses (increasingly
important with rabies and increasing
leishmaniasis in some countries - Italy, Brazil)
and improvement in environmental and social
aspects for synergistic benefit. Trends towards
increasing professionalism and third party
63
review/auditing (of registration programmes,
pounds, performance etc) and centralized
information and campaign and community
educational resources are further paving
the way. For local government support, the
Victorian Bureau of Animal Welfare, urban
animal management section are trail blazing
with a centralized website that supports
Municipalities with practical educational and
campaign resources, standards and Animal
Management Officer (AMO) training while
also regulating and auditing them to ensure
compliance is achieved. And some of Brazil’s
AMOs are evolving dog catching where still
needed.
Policy and legislative enforcement or incentives,
education and compliance
It has been said 90% of the
application law should be as an educational
campaign and then compliance will follow,
and this can also apply to DPM policy
and legislation. Veterinarians, pet shops,
shelters and pounds, schools, community
and environmental health schemes, urban
planners are just some other vehicles for
relevant education on the requirements
of a good dog owner and relevant legal
requirements.
Legal education schemes can be informal
such as booklets with the law explained in
lay terms or as Codes of Practice (COP) or
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) ideally
providing detailed guidance for a number of
DPM related topics relating to the legislation;
responsible ownership, care and welfare of
dogs, breeding establishments, shelters and
pounds, standards for ABC/TNR etc.
Enforcement of legislation is arguably
the latter option, though often a first line
approach in many cultures. For example
in some Eastern Asian cultures with a
high regulatory approach in some areas
(eg. Beijing Municipality) dog regulations
64
have been very controversial and possibly
counter-productive, whereby dog size was
the main criteria of legal relevance. While,
other regulatory cultures with good levels of
RPO education achieve excellent and willing
compliance as they understand their role, the
wider context of the scheme and its impact.
Suggested provisions for Dog Population Management
Policy and Legislation17
A key principle underlying
this section is that the public (dog and
non-dog owners) should be surveyed to
understand their attitudes and behaviours
relating to dogs. A core provision is that
dogs should only be kept when there is full
personal commitment to the animals’ welfare
and must always be provided with shelter,
exercise, care, food, water and socialization
as appropriate to their physiological and
behavioural needs. The suggested provisions
deal with a range of issues that relate to dog
population management and to prevent
related health and welfare problems for dogs:
• Provisions for a dedicated part of a
government agency with expertise,
coordination, resources, web and research
capabilities and external consultation.
• Appropriate definition of owner, dogs,
roaming, abandonment, cruelty etc.
• Measures to establish the responsibility
of dog owners to prevent unwanted dogs
and abandonment, including education for
responsible pet ownership, dog behaviour
and bite-prevention education.
• Mandatory registration with centralized
and linked guardianship data base for
mandatory identification and incentives
(eg. reduced fees) for neutering, adoption,
microchipping, fostering etc.
• Provisions for enforcement (centralized
standard training and powers of competent
authority, resourcing etc), nuisance and lost
and found call management – centralized
data base of resources that authorities can
freely access.
• Provisions for support and a range of
competent authorities- including official
devolution of powers with appropriate
training and resourcing eg. Municipalities,
Police, NGOs, Department of Agriculture,
possibly Natural Resoruces Management.
• Provisions for educational campaigns,
including for dog waste disposal and leash
laws.
• Restrictions on use, such as a prohibition
on the use of animals for fights and
restriction on the number of dogs
personally owned.
• Educational campaigns to encourage
registration compliance.
• Prohibition of breeding unless licensed to
do so.
• Licensing and control of breeding
establishments, including prohibition of
‘fad’ breeding for certain external features
to the detriment of the animal’s health
or welfare and may also lead to owner
rejection and animal abandonment.
• Licensing and control of sellers and dealers,
including specific COP.
• Licensing and control of boarding
establishments.
• Pounds (usually with some level of rehoming, euthanasia) and isolated sick and
rabies centres.
• Licensing and auditing of pounds and
shelters (ideally with key codes of practice
and mandatory training.
• Certain restrictions on the use of dogs/stray
dogs (eg. draught, scientific procedures,
fighting, prizes, racing).
• Restrictions on import and export,
including adequate quarantine (rabies,
leishmaniasis).
• Euthanasia. Regrettably the humane
destruction of healthy animals may
sometimes be unavoidable. Killing
must be carried out by a method that
keeps suffering to a minimum, and by a
veterinarian or other appropriately trained
person.
• Provisions for consulting and linking with
65
• other departments/bodies/academia
for education, public health, tourism,
environment and natural resource
management, urban planning, crime,
violence and social support.
• Provisions for primary school education in
the curriculum, veterinary awareness.
• Provisions for regular and special ethical
review of policy and legislation, including
care with conflicting policy/legislation.
• Where roaming18 community dogs are
accepted by the community (demonstrated
by public surveys), Dog Managed Zones19,
waste mangement and dog proof bins are
all strongly advisable.
Innovation, policy or research needs,
specific attention required
Defining key outcome
oriented indicators for DPM legislative
compliance would be useful to drive and
monitor effective policy. Regular internal
and external review of existing policy and
legislation, including enforcement gaps
and devolved bodies would also be useful
now, as there are no systematic reviews of
DPM implementation of policy including
compliance or enforcement of legislation.
Similarly a review of how DPM policy can pay
for itself (in part, or whole) would provide
insight and evidence for cabinet policy and
budget submissions for DPM. And a review of
the legal concepts of pets as property and
how this affects public perceptions of
disposable attitudes or responsibility for pets
in various cultural contexts would be
most useful.
Technical and educational innovations such
as online registration, information sources,
even consultation and contribution to policy
(Switzerland, Canada with participatory
democracy approaches) may be the way
to proceed in some developing countries
66
with technology access, even possibly leap
frogging some of the earlier methods of
implementing registration schemes, whereby
the dog owners takes responsibility to register
and the competent authority just monitors
compliance. Policy and legislative structures
that is flexible (or at least efficiently amended)
but with good existing infrastructure will also
be able to more readily adopt birth control,
vaccination and communication innovations.
Specific attention is required to better
evaluate the pros and cons of compulsory
sterilization schemes and the concerns,
attitudes and policy forming where roaming
dogs (or cats) are considered feral and thus
pests and could be managed under different
legislation (Sweden, Australia, Pacific).
Finally the rapidly growing and unregulated
pet trade (even by veterinary clinics) with
the popularity of breed dogs as pets in the
developing world also increasing20. As this is
not balanced with a corresponding increase
in RPO education, it has led to an increase
in the number of stray dogs due to high
abandonment and roaming of owned dogs.
Many of these countries have not tackled
this problem before and hence are not well
prepared to handle the problem effectively
nor humanely, especially in Asia though
there are also some good policy and legal
precedents in Hong Kong and Singapore.
Notes and References
1. Definitions from Oxford Dictionary Online
Ownership and Trade’ report 2008
2. WSPA report on National Legislation (for
WSPA target countries and criteria- mostly
developing countries across 5 regions), 2010
10.Reece. J et al various papers. Totton.S phD
See paper by Reece and Krishna for this
meeting.
3. Helms and Bain. 2009. Evaluation of owner
attachment to dogs on the basis of whether
owners are legally considered guardians of
their pets. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2009 Apr
1;234(7):896-900.
11.WSPA International. Also Turkey 2006mass dumping of culled dogs in Mamak
Garbage Dump
http://jose.kersten.fr
accessed 19.2.11
4. Bureau of Animal Welfare, Urban Animal
Management section
www.dpi.vic.gov.au/animalwelfare/
12.Frank J. and Carlisle-Frank. Companion
animal overpopulation and results of
major efforts to reach a ‘no-kill’ nation. In
proc Annual meeting of the American
Sociological Association 2003.
www.allacademic.com/
accessed 27.2.11
5. Council of Europe, 1987. European
convention for the protection of pet animals.
CETS No.: 125.
6. WSPA-RSPCA Stray animal control practices
(Europe) review 2007, available from WSPA.
7. WSPA Internal Inhumane culling review,
geography and preliminary excel country
summary, 2010.
8. Turkey Animal Protection Law 5199
(2004)
http://www.haytap.org/index.
php/20070528133/mevzuat/
animalprotection-bill-law-no-5199
accessed 20.2.11
9. WSPA ‘Global Companion Animal
13.Dalla Villa, P. et al. A management model
applied in two no kill dog shelters in central
Italy. Veterinaria Italia 44(2) 347-359.
www.izs.it/vet_italiana
accessed 14.2.11
14.WSPA-RSPCA Stray animal control practices
(Europe) review 2007, available from Dr Elly
Hiby.
15.ICAM is the International Companion
Animal Management coalition
www.icam.org
16.The first One health international congress
67
17.was in 2011, though this principle has
existed for over a decade now
www.onehealth2011.com.
18.Modified from WSPA Animal Protection
Legislation- suggested provisions 2008 and
OIE 2010 Terrestrial Code
www.oie.int
19.WSPA 2007 defines a roaming or stray
dog as ‘A dog that is not currently under
direct control or is not currently restricted
by a physical barrier. This term is often
used interchangeably with ‘freeroaming’,
‘free-ranging’ or ‘stray’ dog. Note that
this term encompasses both owned and
unowned roaming dogs and does not
distinguish whether the dog has an ‘owner’
or ‘guardian’; indeed in many countries the
majority of dogs that would be defined
as roaming dogs have an owner but are
allowed to roam on public property for all
or part of the day.’
68
20.DMZ is a defined area coordinated in
agreement and education with the main
stakeholder to manage a healthy, stable
dog population. To achieve a DMZ (as
demonstrated in Colombo, Sri Lanka),
there is a recommended procedure
described by WSPA.
21.see WSPA’s ‘Global Companion Animal
Ownership and Trade’ report 2008, which
explored pet ownership, concepts of
responsible ownership and companion
animal medicine capacity across the world.
Malika Kachani
THE ROLE OF DOG POPULATION
MANAGEMENT IN THE PREVENTION
AND CONTROL OF ZOONOSI DISEASES
in collaboration with David Heath
69
Introduction
The relationship between
humans and dogs has evolved dramatically
since they have been domesticated. From
being considered dangerous threat to human
beings, being kept outside the premises,
on leash, beaten or chased away, they have
been recruited to work and assume various
responsibilities, they have become companion
animals, they have even now bonded so
perfectly with human beings that in some
parts of the world they are considered as the
children of the family, and exorbitant amounts
of money are spent on their health. They have
even been admitted to the bedrooms and
beds (Chomel and Sun, 2011). A past President
of Uruguay, when visiting his farm, would
gauge the predicted night temperature to
determine the number of dogs he allows onto
his bed – often a 3-dog night)Unfortunately,
the required care that would keep them safe
for the people that live in their close proximity
is not always provided to them, both in rich
and poor countries. This has enabled them to
transmit pathogens to people, some of which
are often fatal.
Most of the major zoonotic diseases have
been eradicated or addressed in developed
countries. However, developing and transition
countries are still constantly exposed to
zoonotic disease challenges. The World Health
Organization (WHO) has selected a list of 7
priority Neglected Zoonotic Diseases (NZDs),
that includes rabies and cystic echinococcosis
(CE), and has highlighted the control of NZDS
as a route to poverty alleviation (WHO 2005,
2007). In this paper we will use CE to illustrate
some concepts that are relevant to dog
population management.
Current situation
The categories of dogs recognized in the OIE
international Standards are:
Restricted dogs. these are owned dogs
that are fully restricted, fully dependent and
supervised by their owners.
Family dogs. these are owned dogs, they
are fully dependent and semi restricted or
unrestricted.
70
Community dogs. these have no particular
owner, they are semi-dependent and
unrestricted. These are the dogs that are
usually known by the inhabitant, they live by
grocery stores, butchers, factories, etc.
Feral dogs. they have no owner, they are
independent an unrestricted. They roam
usually in groups, in search for food. Places
of interest are the community garbage
containers, the vicinity of rural slaughter
houses, where they can have access to
condemned offal. Unfortunately they can also
have access to rural schools, hospitals, local
markets and residential areas, where they can
disseminate and transmit pathogens.
The last 3 categories are the most dangerous.
Unrestricted dogs are exposed to pathogens.
Rich countries have the resources to
implement successful intensive dog
population control programs. They have
eliminated these types of dogs, and have
regulated the remaining dog population
using strict laws. Due to the lack of resources,
developing countries are constantly exposed
to the pathogens transmitted by the stray
dog populations. There are however great
differences in the relationship with dogs.
Some geographic differences.
In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA),
Islam discourages close association with dogs
which are considered impure. Dogs are not
allowed inside the rooms or even the houses.
However, they receive food, care, and they
are allowed in the backyards, roofs, or with
the livestock. Stray dogs are abundant in
the MENA countries, both in rural and urban
areas, with perpetuates the challenges due to
zoonotic diseases (Kachani et al, 1997, Ouhelli
et al, 1997). The MENA countries have no
legislation for responsible dog ownership, and
there is no formal control of the reproduction.
There are programs to control rabies, based
usually on culling of the stray dog population,
vaccination of owned dogs and public health
education. There are no formal programs to
control cystic echinococcosis or leishmaniasis.
In India, the dog population is estimated at 25
millions, 80% of which are partially restricted
or unrestricted. India is a completely no-kill
country (Dog Control (ABC) Rules of 2001
under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act of 1960 (PCA Act) (Abd Rani et al, 2010).
or privation or fighting. By autumn of each
year, there are many unwanted dogs in the
environment. Most do not survive the winter,
but every year there are similar numbers of
unwanted dogs to carry zoonotic diseases.
In an ongoing research program to control
CE, It has been difficult for researchers to
convince the Lamas to give permission to cull
unwanted dogs (Heath et al, 2006; Yang et al,
2009).
The Turkana district of Kenya includes
160,000 inhabitants, 70% of which are
nomadic or semi-nomadic and largely
illiterate. They owned 6-8,000 dogs that live in
very close proximity to the people. Controlling
the major zoonotic diseases transmitted
by dogs was difficult due to the lack of
educational, medical and veterinary facilities,
poor communication and transportation and
occurrence of frequent droughts (Craig and
Larrieu, 2006).
Stray dogs are still present in many developed
countries, but to a lesser extent than in
developing countries. In New Zealand
for example, there are still dogs that roam
uncontrolled and cause aggressions and
nuisance behavior in cities, but they are
removed quickly. In rural environment, it is
permissible for farmers to shoot roaming
dogs. Fortunately New Zealand is free of
rabies. The Dog Control Act 1996 regulates
the obligations of the owners that include
registration, proper food and care attention,
and the responsibilities of local authorities
such as enforcing the Act, adopting a policy
on dogs, and making dog control bylaws.
The Animal Welfare Act 1999 imposes a
duty of care on those who own or are in
charge of animals. It defines standards and
recommendations for best practice for the
care of dogs including their containment,
tethering, shelter, behavior; and euthanasia
(Heath, personal communication).
In China, the Buddhist religion forbids the
shedding of blood from a living thing so extra
puppies that are not sold commercially are
excluded from households to die of starvation
71
Control programs
As stated in the OIE
standards, the objectives of a dog population
control program are to reduce the numbers
of stray dogs, to improve health and welfare
of owned and stray dog population, to
promote responsible ownership, to reduce
the risk of zoonotic diseases, to manage
risks to human health and to prevent harm
to the environment. The methods used by
many countries that had to implement a dog
population control program have used some
of the OIE recommended measures, either
separately or combined, such as the education
and promotion of responsible ownership,
registration and identification (licensing) of
dogs, control of reproduction, removal and
handling, and management of dogs removed
from the communities.
However, the control of reproduction has not
always been included as a control measure.
Tibetans for example, have almost no control
of mating, but do endeavor to keep less
female than male dogs. Unfortunately many
countries have been practicing intensive
culling, which is not an adequate measure
to control the dog population (Johansen
and Penrith, 2009). However, regular routine
culling, as practiced in New Zealand cities,
can keep the population of unwanted dogs
at a low and acceptable level (Reference-31
Annual Reports of the New Zealand National
Hydatid Council-1960 to1991).
Example of cystic echinococcosis (CE). CE
is caused by a tapeworm (E. granulosus)
transmitted by dogs to humans and livestock.
It is a serious public health threat. Many
countries have implemented a program to
control CE. The methods used to manage
the dog population included the reduction
of the stray dog population (euthanasia,
shooting, baites), spaying of females,
castration of males, restriction of movements
72
and advocating responsible ownership
(Economides et al, in WHO 2001, Craig &
Larrieu, 2006, Heath et al, 2006). CE has been
eradicated or controlled in several countries
as shown below.
Iceland. Health education helped the
population become aware of the transmission
factors of the parasite and prevention
measures. They then required an organized
control program and the government made
a law to register dogs and impose a tax,
followed by another law to prevent feeding of
offal to dogs, and to prevent home killing of
livestock. CE has been successfully eradicated
from Iceland (Craig & Larrieu, 2006, Heath et
al, 2006).
New Zealand. Health education of the farmers
prompted their organization into control
committees. The farmers were ready for
effective control measures and were ready
to pay for them. Education, dog population
management, monitoring of infection in dogs
and livestock, enabled eradication. The control
program, managed by a voluntary Hydatid
Commission, was successful.
Tasmania. The control program was similar
to the New Zealand one, but it was funded
and managed by the State Department
of Agriculture. It is considered one of the
fastest and most successful and cost effective
program yet introduced anywhere in the
world (Craig & Larrieu, 2006, Heath et al,
2006).
Cyprus. The dog population control included
registration of dogs, stray dog control,
speying of females with high registration
fees for unspeyed animals, and public health
education. The national hydatid disease control
program was highly successful (Economides et
al, 1998, Craig and Larrieu, 2006).
Argentina. The farmers were not sufficiently
educated or committed to endorse the
control program. The disease has not been
eradicated, even though, in the Provinces
of Rio Negro, Neuquen and Chubut, hydatid
control has been imposed by the Health
Authorities for at least 30 years. (Craig &
Larrieu, 2006, Heath et al, 2006).
Chile:.eradication could not be achieved
because they do not have jurisdiction of
movements of dogs. The disease could not
be eradicated in Region 12 because working
dogs travel to Argentina in the summer with
their owners and bring the parasite back
from Argentina each year. Hydatid disease is
common in most other regions of Chile (Craig
& Larrieu, 2006, Heath et al, 2006).
China: the problem of local culture and
religious beliefs:. A pilot Hydatid Control
program was implemented in Sichuan
province, Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture,
where there were large numbers of stray dogs
and people living in close proximity to owned
and unwanted dogs. The control measures
could not include euthanasia of unwanted
dogs. It concentrated on education of the
dog-owners and treatment of all wanted and
unwanted dogs in the vicinity of households
with Praziquantel twice a year. The Tibetans
never kill dogs because of their religious
beliefs. They treat their unwanted dogs as free
dogs. The local culture also does not accept
removal of old and unproductive sheep and
goats, which was recommend as an additional
control measure. The program has yet to
overcome these conflicts of religion and local
culture (Yang et al, 2009).
The Turkana district, Kenya. the problem
of poverty: The control measures included
dog population control based on culling of
stray dogs, sterilization of females, parasite
treatment of all owned dogs, community
education and treatment of humans. The
prevalence of the disease in people decreased
from 7% to 2.5 % and the prevalence in
dogs decreased from 65% to 28%. The main
constraints for the program included the
nomadic nature of the Turkana community,
the lack of funding and government support,
and failure of the community to adopt control
measures due to the presence of problems
related to poverty (Magambo et al, 2006).
Recent developments of particular interest
Creative ways to control the dog population.
Innovative Technology was developed to
chemically sterilize male dogs using injectable
solutions (Neutersol and EsterilSol) that provide
permanent sterility in a single treatment. This
approach is very convenient in places where
surgery is particularly difficult or not practical.
In addition, many non-profit organizations
are willing to provide research funds to find
safe, practical non-surgical methods to control
pet overpopulation (“Found Animals”). A new
product (PAPP) for euthanasia of dogs without
loss of blood has been developed (www.
connovation.co.nz). Surgical sterilization of
males is likely to have some effect if the alpha
males are sterilized. However, selected males
will be required for procreation, and if these
males have access to any freedom at all, they
will be able to impregnate large numbers of
females on heat.
73
One Health. The One Health approach is
promoted by many national and international
organizations and Academia at all levels. The
momentum has never been so great.
Funding. Large grant giving bodies are slightly
more aware of the global impact of NZDs.
Important aspects
that deserve specific attention during our meeting
One health approach and horizontal
approach to disease control. These have
been promoted by WHO , FAO, OIE, in order
to reduce the cost of the program and share
resources (WHO 2005, 2007). For example
the control of the dog population benefits
the control of rabies, CE, leishmaniasis and
brucellosis. Unfortunately these approaches
are not applied, especially in the countries
where resources are scarce, and which would
benefit most from them.
Role of International Organizations. They
should help secure resources and funding as
this remains the major problem. They should
recommend that major funding agencies
provide assistance for the control of diseases
that have a global health impact and work on
shifting the allocation of American funding
toward more vital activities. They should
also facilitate continuing education for
government officials from endemic countries,
(like the OIE annual meetings of chief
veterinary officers), to increase awareness of
the importance of zoonotic diseases control
and facilitate regional collaboration.
Role of the country’s relevant structures. The
Health and Agriculture Departments, with the
help of the OIE, FAO and WHO, should make
major zoonotic diseases reportable and make
endemic countries consider them as a priority.
The lack of relevant legislation regarding
74
important aspects of zoonotic disease control
should be addressed. A big problem in all
countries where hydatid control has not been
successful is the need for Ministries of Health
and Agriculture to work together. They will
never do so unless a higher authority directs
them to do this, and the central government
provides funds.
VPH structures. WHO and FAO have been
promoting inter-sectoral collaboration and
the creation of Veterinary Public Health (VPH)
structures since 1975 (WHO, 2002). They
should now help the countries make this a
priority, to enable collaboration between
relevant departments and sharing of
resources.
Ownership of programs by the community.
This must be promoted and encouraged in
order to ensure success. The social structures
of the community must also be taken into
consideration.
Real causes of the problem. The reasons
zoonotic diseases are often not controlled
should be studied and addressed. These
are, for many poor countries, a combination
of lack of resources, lack of government
commitment, lack of inter-sectoral
collaboration, poverty…
Setting specific measures: many control
measures and standards have been developed
by rich countries and they work in their
settings, but they are not always applicable in
developing countries. Setting specific control
measures should be developed. For example,
a dog tax or a dog anthelmintic program
every 6 weeks cannot be applied in poor
countries.
Poverty. Poor communities lack basic needs
and it is difficult to focus on disease control
in these situations. The case of the Turkana
hydatid control program described earlier is a
good example.
Lack of water. In many situations the lack of
access to water is one of the real problems.
More urgent measures may be to help the
local population have access to water and this
will decrease health issues.
Challenges for CE Control programs. Control
of hydatid disease caused by E.granulosus
has been undertaken during the previous
50 years, with varying degrees of success.
The desired outcome of eradication, and
maintenance of that state, has only been
successful in some island countries. In
continental regions control has been
generally less successful, and is still on-going
where funding is available (Heath, personal
communication). A general observation from
these accounts is that hydatid control has
been successful in places where it is driven
from the bottom upwards. The dog owners
must own the program and want to make it
work. Two examples of this are New Zealand
and Tasmania. Although these are both island
countries and border control is possible,
success was due to involvement of all levels of
dog ownership and dog health practitioners.
New Zealand used local government
personnel while Tasmania used Department
of Agriculture people. Both schemes were
successful and both relied on the willingness
of dog-owners to cooperate for hydatid
control (Heath, personal communication).
In both New Zealand and Tasmania, all stray
dogs were eliminated in rural environments
by the farmers who usually shot stray dogs.
In cities, stray dogs were rounded up by dog
catchers and either homed or disposed of. All
dogs had to have a current registration tag
displayed on their collar, and all pups had to
be registered by 3 months old if they were to
be kept. Annual registration costs were about
$50, to pay for the Hydatid Control program.
So- dog population control was done by
the owners, who all believed in the Hydatid
Control program but also did not want to be
seen with an unregistered dog, because of a
$400 fine imposed on them.
Importance of Participatory Planning and
Cooperation between Health and Agriculture.
Almost all other hydatid control programmes
referred to above have been imposed on
the dog-owners by Government officials
(usually Ministry of Health or Ministry of
Agriculture, but seldom a combination of
both Ministries). The challenge now for
continental environments is for Ministries
of Health and Agriculture to cooperate for
hydatid control, and to initiate programs by
involving the dog owners in Participatory
Planning (dog owners and livestock owners
learn about hydatid disease and the control
options available. They make suggestions on
control options suitable for their environment,
and for surveillance. Procedures agreed on
are organized at local Government level
and facilitated by the most appropriate
people – veterinarians or health workers or
local government. There should be regular
assessment using KAP surveys (Knowledge,
Attitude, Practices). Annual results should be
prepared and distributed. The people OWN
the Control Program and make it work (Heath,
personal communication).
75
Relevant case studies and examples
All the CE control programs described above
could be in this section, but there is no need
for repetition.
Sterilization and PAPP - the case of Tibet. In
unsophisticated areas like Tibet, it is highly
unlikely that sterilization of the female dogs
will be offered free by the Government.
Unwanted dogs are not killed, but are driven
to the outside of households, where they
might be fed from time to time, but mostly
not. These become a source of zoonoses
before they die. These unwanted dogs can be
easily fed a PAPP bait and go into permanent
sleep, and this fits with the religious customs
of the Tibetans.
Morocco. “Commission pour the controle
des zoonoses”. Morocco has created this
Commission which is the equivalent of a
Veterinary Public Health (VPH) unit that
includes veterinarians, physicians and other
professionals from the Ministry of Agriculture,
Health and Interior. This enables inter-sectoral
collaboration, cooperation, planning and
sharing resources, and the application of
the horizontal approach to disease control,
combining diseases that have similar
transmission factors.
Horizontal approach and intersectoral
collaboration. The author had the opportunity
to practice the horizontal approach in a
pilot program to control hydatid disease:
all dog owners were gathered at meeting
points where their dogs were treated with
praziquanted and vaccinated against rabies.
Large ultrasound screening surveys of people
were conducted as a collaboration between
the medical and veterinary teams and public
education was provided during the surveys.
All the positive people were treated by
the medical team, as a contribution of the
Ministry of Health to the project (Kachani et al,
2003, Macpherson et al, 2004).
References
1. Abd Ghani M., Irwin P.J., Gatne M., Toleman
G.T. & Traub R.J. (2010). Canine vectorborne diseases in India: a review of the
literature and identification of knowledge
gaps. Parasites and Vectors 3: 28, 1-7.
2. Craig, Larrieu, 2006. Control of cystic
76
echinococcosis/hydatidosis 1863-2002).
Advances in Parasitology, 61, 1-68.
3. Chomel, B. B., and B. Sun. 2011. Zoonoses
in the bedroom. Emerg Infect Dis 17:167172.
4. Economides P., Larrieu E.J., Orlando D.,
2001. Evolution of programs for control
of Eg. 204-209. In WHO/OIE Manual on
Echinococcosis in Humans and Animals: A
Public Health Problem of Public Concern.
Eckert, Gemmell, Meslin & Pawlowski
Eds. Paris: World Health Organization for
Animal Health, 265pp.
12.Kachani M. (2006). Combating a hidden
threat: finding ways of reducing the
burden of cystic echinococcosis in poor
communities. In WHO/DFID-AHP meeting
on control of zoonotic diseases: a route
to poverty alleviation among livestockkeeping communities. WHO headquarters,
Geneva, September 20-21 2005.
5. Foundanimals: http://www.foundanimals.
org/index.php/About-Michelson/themichelson-prize.html
13.OIE international standards: http://
www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_
chapitre_1.7.7.htm )
6. Harper, C. Addison Biological Laboratory.
“Neutersol: Chemical Sterilization for
Dogs.” Proceedings of the Caribbean
Animal Welfare Conference. May 2004.
14.Ouhelli, Kadiri, El Hasnaoui, Kachani, 1997.
Prevalence of Echinococcus granulosus in
dogs in Morocco and potential role of dogs
in transmission of cystic echinococcosis.
145- 155. In Compendium on cystic
echinococcosis in Africa and in Middle
Eastern countries, with special reference to
Morocco, Andersen, Ouhelli, Kachani Eds,
BYU Print services, Provo, Utah, USA, pp.
345.
7. Heath D., Yang W., Li T., Hiao Y., Chen X.,
Huang Y., YangY, Wang Q $ Qiu J. (2006).
Control of Hydatidosis. Parasitology
International, 55, S247-S252.
8. Van Johansen M. and Mary-Lou Penrith.
(2009). Has culling been properly assessed
as a valid and justified control intervention
measure for zoonotic diseases? PLoS
Neglected Tropical Diseases, 3, 10, e541.
9. Kachani, Ouhelli, Tabyaoui, Bouslikhane,
Andersen, 1997. Preparation and
evaluation of educational aids on cystic
echinococcosis in Morocco. 169-185. In
Compendium on cystic echinococcosis
in Africa and in Middle Eastern countries,
with special reference to Morocco,
Andersen, Ouhelli, Kachani Eds, BYU Print
services, Provo, Utah, USA, pp. 345.
10.Kachani M, 2002. In future trends in
Veterinary public health. Report of a
WHO study group, Technical report series,
Geneva, pp. 96.
11.Kachani M., Macpherson, Lyagoubi,
Berrada, Bouslikhane, Kachani F. & M.
El Hasnaoui. Public health education:
Importance and experience from the
field. Educational impact of ultrasound
screening surveys. (2003). Acta Tropica,
85/2, 263-269.
15.WHO/DFID-AHP. (2005). Report of a
joint WHO/DFID-AHP Meeting with the
participation of FAO and OIE. The control
of neglected zoonotic diseases, a route to
poverty alleviation. 20 and 21 September,
Geneva. http://www.who.int/zoonoses/
Report_Sept06.pdf
16.WHO/EU/ILRI/FAO/OIE/AU. (2007). Report
of a joint WHO/EU/ILRI/FAO/OIE/AU
meeting. Integrated Control of Neglected
Zoonotic Diseases in Africa. Applying the
“One Health” Concept. 13-15 November,
ILRI Headquarters, Nairobi, Kenya. Online:
http://www.who.int/zoonoses/control_
neglected_zoonoses/en/print.html.
(Accessed January 22, 2009).
17.Yang Y. R., Mc Manus D. P., Huang Y. &
Heath D. (2009)PloS Neglected Tropical
Diseases, 3, 4, e426, 1-7.
18.WHO. (2002). Future trends in Veterinary
Public Health: Report of a WHO Study
Group. 1-5 WHO Technical Report Series
907. Geneva. Meeting held in March 1999,
Teramo, Italy.
77
Peter Omemo
RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP
OPTIONS
78
Abstract
This paper highlights
important developments in the area of
responsible dog ownership in developing
and developed nations. Animal welfare is
a complex issue with important scientific,
ethical, economic, religious, political and
cultural dimensions.The long term options for
responsible dog ownership should include
education on animal welfare, dog registration,
dog relocation and law enforcement although
their still exists negative attitude towards
responsible dog ownership especially in the
developing countries. There is a need for
more studies particularly in the developing
countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America on
the relationship between dogs and humans
so that area-specific strategies for improving
responsible dog ownership can be designed.
Introduction
Let us start this discussion
by looking at the applicability of the word
“owned dog”. The International Companion
Animal Management Coalition (ICAM
Coalition) defined an owned dog as one
that someone states is his or her property or
simply put, when enquiries are made about
the dog someone will say: “That’s my dog”
[ICAM Coalition, 2007].This type of response
may be common in the more developed
nations of Western Europe and North America
which tend to be more responsible towards
dog ownership. In these countries pets often
accompany owners to stores and restaurants.
They have strict pet ownership laws; roaming
dogs are uncommon and the animal rights
movement is very active1.
are left to roam to forage for food since they
are not adequately fed daily by their owners
(Patronek, 2006). This observation was also
made by Kitala et al. (2001) in a dog ecology
and population study in Machakos District,
Kenya.
In the less-developed countries especially
in resource poor communities where food,
education, and health care are scarce, dogs
79
What is responsible dog ownership?
Although responsible animal
ownership is a subject of global concern,
there is still no consensus on its definition
since as pointed out by Buller (2003) animal
welfare is a complex issue with important
scientific, ethical, economic, religious, political
and cultural dimensions. There are a number
of approaches that have been used to define
animal welfare which we would like to
highlight for the purpose of this paper.
One such approach is a “Feeling-based”
approach, which maintains that animals
are sentient – they have feelings, and so
if we treat them well, they are likely to be
more productive. This approach describes
animal welfare in terms of their subjective
experiences (feelings, emotions) and so
emphasizes the reduction of negative
feelings/ emotions (pain, injury, hunger,
thirst) and promotion of positive ones
(normal behaviour). The other approach
is “Functioning-based” approach, which
defines animal welfare in terms of normal
or satisfactory biological functioning of
the animals – their health, longevity and
reproduction (Webster, 2005; Arlinghaus et al.,
2007).
There is also another though a less developed
approach; one that calls for animals to be
raised in a manner that suit the nature of that
particular species to be able to perform its full
repertoire of behavior, i.e. allowing animals
to be just that – animals (Webster, 2005). All
these approaches have nevertheless agreed
that responsible animal ownership must be
holistic both physically and mentally to the
animal. Thus, whatever the approach, human
beings have a moral and ethical obligation to
ensure that animals enjoy good quality life.
The famous quote by Mahatma Gandhi is that
“the moral integrity of a nation is seen in the
80
way people treat their animals.” The truth is
that people who treat their animals better
are more likely to treat themselves well, and
vice versa. While the issue of animal welfare
has taken an international dimension, it is
likely that most developing countries have
not kept pace with the current trends in
international policies, guidelines, standards,
and recommendations regarding dog welfare.
There are still differences across the globe in
the understanding of what responsible dog
ownership really means. Religion and culture
play an important role in peoples’ attitudes
and beliefs about dog ownership. For example
the human-animal bond is weaker in some
parts of Southeast Asia in that dogs are
treated both as companions and in some
cultures as food, e.g., in China and Vietnam
(Podberscek, 2007).This practice was also
reported by Cutter (1993) in the Proceedings
of the 13th National Urban Animal
Management Conference about the culture
of the people of Flores (Indonesia) where
Special wedding occasions involve the giving
of dogs for feasting and celebration purposes.
The issue of eating dogs is highly emotive,
especially for animal lovers who regard pets as
part of their families.
Despite the popularity of dogs and the good
reasons for pet ownership, a large proportion
of dogs (and other pets) in Western countries
are also abused, abandoned, and needlessly
euthanized each year (Gerbasi, 2004; New
et al., 2004; Bartlett et al., 2005 ), in addition
to being used in medical research (Carbone,
2004; Home Office, 2006). A major concern in
developing countries is the inability for the
people to practice responsible dog ownership
due to poverty for example, communities
living in the arid and semi arid regions of
eastern and northern Kenya keep many dogs
but they cannot meet the
basic needs of the animals (Kitala et al. 2001).
Traditionally, the vast majority of people in
Africa like dogs and even though the stated
reasons for keeping dogs are mostly guard
duties and hunting, there is more about dog
ownership in Africa than is revealed. Probably
sociologists need to conduct more studies
particularly on African’s attitudes and beliefs
about dog ownership.
We need to look at the definition of animal
welfare as used by the International
Companion Animal Management Coalition
(ICAM Coalition) on animal welfare; that
owners have a duty to provide sufficient and
appropriate care for all their animals and their
offspring. This ‘duty of care’ requires animal
owners to provide the resources (e.g. food,
water, health care and social interaction)
necessary for an individual dog to maintain
an acceptable level of health and well-being
in its environment. The Five Freedoms2 serve
as a useful guide although in an ideal world
but not in the real world. This is because
of the geographical and other differences,
i.e., economic, social, religious and cultural
diversity.
The five freedoms cannot operate singularly
since an animal needs more than just
provision of food and water. It may be
possible to provide sufficient food and water
in addressing freedom from hunger and thirst,
but the animals may not eat or drink, and so
it will still be hungry and thirsty – perhaps
because they have other problems that
prevent them from enjoying food (Arlinghaus,
2007).
Responsible dog ownership options
Research by the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and
the American Society of Plastic Surgeons
on responsible dog ownership showed that
tethering dogs contribute to aggressive
behaviour in the vast majority of dogs
(AVMA, 2001). Thus, they recommended a
fenced yard or dog-run instead of tethering.
Unfortunately, most homesteads in Africa do
not have dog-proof fences and thus the use
of dog runs is a better option since a bitch on
heat left loose in a yard will invite males who
can climb over, dig under, or rip through a
weak fence to get to her. While a secure fence
is suitable for keeping the dog under control,
a tattoo or a collar tag is necessary in the rural
African communities for dog identification.
The use of a microchip is only feasible in
the developed nations with a good dog
registration system.
For pet lovers, dogs are valuable members
of the household and it is important to make
arrangements for their care if something
happens to you. Probably appointing
someone who is willing and able to take the
dogs in. It is also the responsibility of a dog
owner to include his/her dog when preparing
for emergencies. Although insurance
policies are available for valuable pets in the
developed countries, such services are rare or
non-existent in Africa3.
Although education does not have an
81
immediate impact on responsible animal
ownership, it is the best option especially
in the developing countries. In Kenya
registration of dog owners is very difficult
owing to legal and technical challenges
in addition to the short life expectancy of
dogs. It has been observed in Kenya that
dog populations are highly dynamic with
high turn-over rates especially in the rural
areas; a household could easily lose all dogs
within a short time (Kitala et al., 2001). This
may render dog registration as practiced in
the developed world impractical. However,
registration of dog owners is an effective way
of clearly connecting an owner with his or
her animal (RSPCA, 2010). But it is important
that law enforcement is also there to help
those animals that are suffering due to human
cruelty. In Kenya, the government plays
its role of enforcing the statutes; however,
very little resources are allocated making
surveillance ineffective.
Having a good animal welfare act is important
with good law enforcement from the police,
local authorities, veterinarians and animal
welfare officers. One emerging strategy in
America and Australia which can be tried
in other regions is the relocation of dogs
from areas where they are in excess to those
with shortages (Patronek, 1997). Research
is therefore necessary to determine dog
population and ownership by country and
regional distribution. In the USA there is
significant south to north eastern state
transfer of puppies. The basic dog control
options that seems to work for the Australian
urban communities includes a set of rules
operating under an overarching process of
good public awareness and active regulatory
laws( Patrick et al.,1998).
Why negative attitude towards
responsible dog ownership?
Speciesism. The Oxford English dictionary
defines it as “the assumption of human
superiority over other creatures leading to the
exploitation of animals.” In Africa the question
that pet welfare advocates are often asked is
why talk about responsible dog ownership
when so many people are suffering from
hunger4.
This of course is an example of specialism,
the attitude being that as long as people
suffer, just ignore animals’ suffering! People
in these regions often abdicate their duty of
care towards their dogs. They forget that they
82
are the ones who brought the animals in their
homes in the first place.
Negative attitude to change. “I have always done
it this way” syndrome. There is a myth in
Africa that if dogs are shut away and don’t see
people they will be very fierce and therefore
people locking dogs in boxes all day is very
common. The dogs are never exposed to
sunlight or even to their owners who then
wonder why they leave the compound at
night instead of staying and guarding them5.
Indifference. This is one of the most difficult
attitudes to change especially in the slum
areas, where many people do not care about
pets and they have no sympathy for dogs
suffering or their welfare.
Notes and References
1. 2003-2004 AVMA presidents-elect
Dr. Bonnie V. Beaver
2. Freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom
from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury
or disease; freedom to express normal
behaviour; freedom from fear and distress.
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC).
www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm
3. Eastern & Southern Africa 1st Regional
Workshop on “Animal Welfare, Livelihoods
and Environment” 24th - 28th September,
2007 Nairobi, Kenya.
4. Eastern & Southern Africa 1st Regional
Workshop on “Animal Welfare, Livelihoods
and Environment” 24th - 28th September,
2007 Nairobi, Kenya.
5. Jean Gilchrist, Kenya Society for Protection
and Care for Animals (KSPCA).
6. Arlinghaus R, Cooke, S J, Schwab, A and
Cowx, I (2007). Fish welfare: a challenge
to the feelings based approach, with
implications for recreational fishing. Fish &
Fisheries 8: 57-71.
7. American Veterinary Medical Association
Task Force on Canine Aggression and
Humane-Canine Interaction, “A Community
Approach to Dog Bite Prevention”, Journal
of the American Veterinary Medical
Association (2001) 218: 1732-1749.
8. Bartlett, P. C., Bartlett, A., Walshaw, S., &
Halstead, S. (2005). Rates of euthanasia
and adoption for dogs and cats in Michigan
animal shelters. Journal of Applied Animal
Welfare Science, 8, 97 - 104.
9. Bartlett, K., & Clifton, M. (2003). How many
dogs and cats are eaten in Asia? Animal
People, 12, 18 - 19.
10.Blackshaw, J. (1996), ‘Developments in
the study of human-animal relationships’,
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 47, 1–6.
11.Buller, H and Morris, C (2003). Farm Animal
Welfare: a new Repertoire of Nature-Society
Relations or Modernism Re- embedded?
Sociologia Ruralis 43(3):216-237.
12.Carbone, L. (2004). What animals want:
Expertise and advocacy in laboratory animal
welfare policy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
13.Di Salvo, H., Haiduven, D., Johnson, N.,
Reyes, V., Hnch, C., Shaw, R. & Stevens,
D. (2005), ‘Who lets the dogs out? Infection
control did: Utility of dogs in health care
settings and infection control aspects’,
American Journal of Infection Control
34(5), 301–307.
14.“Facts about Chaining or Tethering Dogs,”
the Humane Society of the United States,
15 Oct. 2007, 5 Nov.2007
83
15.www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_
pets/animal_abuse_and_neglect/the_
facts_about_chaining_or_tethering_dogs.
html
16.Gerbasi, K. C. (2004). Gender and
nonhuman animal cruelty convictions: Data
from pet-abuse.com. Society & Animals, 12,
359 – 365.
17.Hutabarat T, Geong M, Newsome A, &
Cutter S. (1993). Rabies and dog ecology in
Flores. Edited by Steve Cutter Proceedings
of the 13th National Urban Animal
Management Conference, published by the
Australian Veterinary Association Ltd. ABN
008 552 852].
18.Home Office, (2006). Statistics of scientific
procedures on living animals - Great Britain
2005. London: HMSO.
19.Kitala, P., McDermott, J., Kyule, M.,
Gathuma, J., Perry, B. & Wandeler, A.
(2001), ‘Dog ecology and demography
information to support the planning of
rabies control in Machakos District, Kenya’,
Acta Tropica 78, 217–230.
20.Podberscek, A. L. (2007). Dogs and
cats as food in Asia. In M. Bekoff (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of human-animal
relationships: A global exploration of our
connections with animals (pp. 24 – 34).
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
21.Paul, E. & Serpell, J. (1996), ‘Obtaining a
new pet dog: Effects on middle childhood
children and their families’, Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 47, 17–29.
22.Patrick GR, O’Rourke KM. Dog and cat
bites: epidemiologic analyses suggest
different prevention strategies. Public Health
Rep 1998;113:252–7.
23.Patronek, G., Beck, A. & Glickman, L.
(1997), ‘Dynamics of dog and cat population
in a Community’, Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association 210(5).
24.Petrini, A and Wilson, D (2005). Philosophy,
84
policy and procedures of the World Animal
Health Organization for the development of
standards on animal welfare. Rev.Sci. Tech.
Off. Int. Epiz. 24(2): 665-671.
25.Paxton DW. (1994) Community Involvement
and Urban Dogs in the Proceedings of the
3rd National Urban Animal Management
Conference (DW Paxton ed), published by
the Australian Veterinary Association Ltd.
ISBN 0 646 16339 X.
26.RSPCA, Improving dog ownership; The
economic case for dog licencing.
27.Willis, C., Church, S., Guest, C., Cook, W.,
McCarthy, N., Bransbury, A., Church, M.
& John, C. (2006), ‘Olfactory detection of
human bladder cancer by dogs: Proof of
principle study’, British Medical Journal
329, 711–714.a
28.Veterinarians Team Up With Plastic
Surgeons for Dog Bite Prevention Week,
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association News 15 May 2003.
29.Webster J (2005). Assessment and
Implementation of Animal Welfare: Theory
into Practice. Rev. Sc. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 24
(2).
Rita de Cassia Maria Garcia
DOG CATCHING,
HANDLING AND REMOVAL
85
Introduction
The killing of stray animals
was widespread in the nineteenth century,
due to the association between dog saliva
and the spread of the rabies virus. Back
then kennels and pounds were built to
house captured animals, which were later
killed. Methods used for killing varied from
shooting to drowning. Still today, the spread
of zoonoses from pets to humans is the major
reason why dogs and cats continue to be
eliminated, and impacts policies designed
for Animal Control in different countries
worldwide. These policies vary according to
local socio-cultural, economic and religious
aspects.
an animal physically and/or psychologically
(Sheldon; Sonsthagen; Topel,2006). The
ethological management is the minimum
amount of restraint necessary to complete
the procedure. It takes into consideration the
animal’s behavior through the observation of
its body language, animal welfare, the specific
situation at the moment of the handling and
place in which both animal and officer are
found and the appropriate use of equipments
for contention and transportation of animals
in order to prevent risks for all (Calderón
Maldonado, 2005; ITEC, 2009).
Various techniques are utilized for controlling
stray dogs and cats. Some of them are non
selective killing (e.g. shooting, poisoning,
electrocution, drowning), selective killing
(this can be done humanely or inhumanely),
non selective catching and killing, selective
catching and killing, catch, neuter and release
(CNR), catching and shelter/re-homing
(adoption/reuniting) (OIE, 2006). WSPA and
RSPCA, 2007, in a survey in thirty European
countries found 17% (n=5) of them culled
(shot) the dogs; in 70% (n=21) countries
the principal method of stray control was
to capture dogs and hold them during the
statutory holding periods.
The stress caused by inappropriate
management of animals results in aggressive
behavior, which is a risk for the worker, the
community and the animals. The non-violent,
ethological handling of animals participating
in “capture - spay/neuter – release” programs
is important to improve animal compliance
during follow-up examinations, vaccination
against rabies or other activities. Ethological
management is the assessment of an animal’s
behavior through the observation of its body
language, the situation and place in which
both animal and officer are found and the
correct use of appropriate equipment for
restraint and transport of animals in order
to prevent risks for all (Calderón Maldonado,
2005; ITEC, 2009).
The violent methods used to eliminate the
animals is closely associated with the poor
capture and handling techniques used
in many public pounds and centers for
zoonoses control. As the negative image of
the public pounds increases and authorities
loose credibility, and this in turn hinders the
establishment of successful partnerships
for an effective animal control program
(Garcia, 2005; ITEC, 2007). The goal in any
restraint procedure is to minimize the effects
of handling. Improper restraint can affect
It is important to ensure the safety of the
people involved in any restraint procedure.
Knowing animal behavior patterns enables
the employee to understand signs of
nervousness and fright and if attack is
eminent. Another important aspect in the
restraint procedure is to define priorities
in the process of catching animals off the
streets. This is because animal control and
zoonoses control services are not always
capable of catching every single stray dog
or cat. For this reason, there is the so called
86
“selective removal” procedure which will take
into account the different levels of health
and welfare in stray animals (ITEC, 2008).
However, the population of dogs tends
to increase very rapidly due to dogs’ high
reproduction potential (WHO; WSPA, 1990)
and any reduction in their population will be
compensated by a healthy reproduction and
survival of those which remained. According
to Beck (1973; 1975) and Fox, Beck and
Blackamn (1975) when stray dogs are caught
there is an increase in life expectancy of those
which survived as there is an increase in the
availability of food access and shelter due less
competition. Many studies on cat and dog
population of developing countries which
have neither public policies for population
balance nor high responsible pet ownerships
have shown that these populations present
high replacement rates, low average age
and life expectancy, high rates for fertility,
mortality and reproduction (BERAN, 1982).
control services. “Community animals”, that
is, those which are accepted and looked after
by the community can receive specific health
and control programs. Afterwards, monitoring
could make them become sentinels.
Thus, prioritizing the animals which are
putting people and other animals at risk by
utilizing the “selective removal” procedure
is thought to be a good strategy in animal
Human Resources and Materials
The most commonly used
tools in dog capture are: lassos, nets, catch
poles and leashes. Due to financial constraints
some governments encourage killing on
the streets by means of gunfire or poisoning
or even in gas chambers located inside the
capture vehicle. Normally, the staff in charge
of capturing and killing is not trained for such
actions. It is not uncommon for the staff to
include troubled people who did not fit into
any other occupation. Moreover, salaries are
low and health care is limited to pre-exposure
rabies prevention, with no effort of providing
physical and/or mental assessment and
welfare (GARCIA, 2005).
87
A Successful Experience:
Training Course for Animal Control Officers (Curso de
Formação de Oficiais de Controle Animal – FOCA)
In 2004 the Technical Institute
of Animal Control (ITEC, 2005) launched the
FOCA’s Course to teach ethology concepts
to employees of animal control services
and qualify them to teach the concepts of
responsible pet ownership in the community.
The first draft of the Training Course for
Animal Control Officers (FOCA’s Course)
was written during the First Latin American
Meeting of Experts on Responsible Pet
Ownership and Dog Control (Garcia, 2005).
As it matured overtime, emphasis was placed
on the development of strategic partnerships
between players directly or indirectly involved
with animal control issues. The aim of these
partnerships was to promote responsible
pet ownership and to encourage active
involvement of the community through
active engagement in various programs for
population control of dogs and cats (OPAS &
WSPA 2003). From March 2005 until December
2010 twenty-four 44-hour courses had taken
place.
The course method targets three specific
areas of learning: cognitive, emotional and
psychomotor - manual or physical skills
(Chabot & Chabot 2005). The aim here is
to increase the awareness of the students
to include kindness and humane actions
in the performance of various services, so
that they become promoters of health and
builders of peace (Cortina 2005, Afonso et al.
2006). Moreover, the course focuses on the
development of essential professional skills,
with an emphasis on values, attitudes and
commitments of stakeholders.
The course highlights the importance of
88
changing the image of these professionals,
providing an environment that enables
participants to become true health promoters,
educators, friends of the animals and partners
of the community: an “Animal Control Officer”
(ITEC 2008).
The FOCA course has three main objectives
(ITEC, 2008): to enable the use of ethology
in the management of all activities pursued
by zoonoses and animal control services;
to enable the implementation of effective
actions for the control of the population of
dogs and cats, complying with technical,
rational and ethical ordinances in light of
community welfare; to instruct and sensitize
participants for the promotion of overall
health in their municipalities by developing
effective and successful programs on
population control of dogs and cats and the
zoonoses that is transmitted by them (ITEC,
2008).
The FOCA course has the following specific
objectives (ITEC, 2008): to change the attitude,
behavior and habits of participants towards
animals in order to rebuild new concepts
and encourage social participation; to brief
participants on the most important zoonoses
in their region of work and how to control
them; to offer elements and encouragement
for the promotion of a new image and
credibility in the field of animal control;
to develop broader access of information
regarding ethology and management; to
raise awareness on the behavior of dogs and
cats, animal welfare, bioethics, behavioral
ecology of dogs and cats, unified health
system, contraceptive methods, register and
identification, euthanasia, environmental
management, humanitarian education,
zoonoses prevention, responsible pet
ownership and others; to stimulate the
change in the officers’ behavior with the
public, animals and with themselves; to value
the opinions and knowledge of participants
in the field by promoting the exchange of
information and experiences; to offer input
for reflection, discussion and reasoning on
decision-making processes so that ethical
and technical aspects are included in new
programs.
The lessons emphasize theory, practice,
demonstration of techniques and
experiments to boost self-knowledge. As the
majority of animals which are in the streets
have already had a home and present some
social skills the main technique for animal
restraint is the “1, 2, 3 technique” that uses a
leash made of soft rope. In this procedure, the
officer follows three steps until achieving total
animal restraint: the first step is to observe the
animal’s behavior, the environment and the
risks involved; the second is to move closer
to the animal and while doing so observe the
animals reaction at every moment. Before or
during this stage baits can be used to facilitate
this contact between officer and animal; the
third step is to leash the animal with the rope
and apply the muzzle (three laps around the
snout) when the restraint procedure will have
been completed (Chiozzotto et all, 2008; ITEC,
2009).
safe and durable; implementation of actions
for animal population control such as
registration, identification and reproduction
control; law regulations and sanctions related
to this field such as adoption, education, trade
and environmental control.
Regarding results, so far: 56% of
municipalities reported an improvement in
their relationship with the society; 77.8%
of municipalities, ethological handling was
adopted for the removal of animals on the
streets; 66.7% of municipalities initiated
selective removal; 97% of the participants
reported changes in their attitude with the
animals and the people; one of them said:
“Now, the population respects us”, and
the other one “I learned that it is possible
to work in animal control with ethics and
respect”(ITEC, 2008).
Another outcome was a film production
called “An introduction to ethological canine
handling” which shows how to develop
positive and safe handling techiniques for
interactions between the different types of
professionals, providing first concepts of
biology, ethology, pshychology and animal
welfare (ITEC, 2007).
The course aims at personal and professional
development where participants acquire tools
to deal with the difficulties they face daily
which can wear out some remaining ideals
and dreams they may still have.
Some short-term outcomes of the proposed
methods are: implementation of ethological
management immediately after the course;
easier interaction with the community and
rapid decrease in complaints from employees;
acquisition of a sense of pride and motivation
among employees, cleaner vehicles as
well-managed animals do not dirt as much
as stressed out animals, decrease in stress
among employees due to higher numbers
of peaceful animals that are kept in kennels,
the media’s attention to this new method;
implementation of the “humanitarian”
euthanasia. Some medium and long-term
outcomes of the proposed methods are:
improvement in keeping vehicles clean,
89
Conclusion
There are many government
institutions that still rely on old methods of
animal control because they believe these
are the easiest, fastest and cheapest methods
available. However, partnerships and unified
efforts trigger great changes and involve the
government, the officers and the community.
A new image of the zoonoses and the
animal control services is important for the
implementation of effective animal control
programs, based on solid technical and
ethical values, and for a change in attitude,
commitment and behavior of those who work
in the field. Skilled and qualified workers, who
are regarded as examples of good practices
in their area is a great improvement for
understanding and designing action for the
control of the population of dogs and cats.
The FOCA course improves and consolidates
the educational component of animal
population control in Brazil as well as in other
countries.
References
1. Afonso M.L.M.(org), Abade F.L., Akerman
D., Coelho C.M.S., Medrado K.S., Paulino
J.R., Pimenta S.D.C. 2006. Oficinas em
dinâmica de grupo na área da saúde. Casa
do Psicólogo, São Paulo.
2. Beck, A. M. The ecology of stray dogs:
a study of free-ranging urban animals.
Baltimore, Maryland: York Press, 1973. 98 p.
3. Beck, A. M. The ecology of “feral” and
free-roming dogs in Baltimore. In: FOX,
M. W. The wild canids, their systematic,
behavioral ecology and evolution. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1975., p.
380-390.
4. Beran, G. W. Ecology of dogs in the
Central Philippines in relation to rabies
90
control efforts. Comparative immunology,
microbiology and infectious diseases, v. 5,
n. 1, p. 265-270, 1982.
5. Calderon Maldonado N.A. 2005.
Comportamento canino e felino. I Curso
FOCA. Guarulhos, SP.
6. Chabot D. & Chabot M. 2005. Pedagogia
emocional sentir para aprender. Sá Editora.
7. Cortina A. 2005. Cidadãos do mundo para
uma teoria da cidadania. Ed. Loyola, São
Paulo.
8. Fox, M. W.; Beck, A.; Blackman, E. Behavior
and ecology of a small group of urban
dogs (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal
Ethology, v. 1, p.119-137, 1975.
9. Chiazzotto, E. N.; Gomes, L. H.; Almeida,
M. M.; Calderón Maldonado, N. A.; Garcia,
R. C. M. Guia Prático. Curso de Formação
de Oficiais de Controle Animal (FOCA).
Segunda edição. 20p.
FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO
ANIMALS INTERNACIONAL. Report Stray
Animal Control Practices (Europe). 62p.
2007.
10.Garcia R.C.M. 2005. Programa de controle
populacional de cães e gatos. I Curso
FOCA. Guarulhos.
11.Instituto Técnico de Educação e Controle
Animal (ITEC), 2009. Introduction to
ethological canine handling. Video 18
minutos. www.itecbr.org. São Paulo.
12.Instituto Técnico de Educação e Controle
Animal (ITEC). 2005. Relatório Curso de
Formação de Oficiais de Controle Animal.
13.Instituto Técnico de Educação e Controle
Animal (ITEC). 2007. Oficial de controle
animal: um aliado da comunidade. Video
20 minutos. www.itecbr.org. São Paulo.
14.Instituto Técnico de Educação e Controle
Animal. (ITEC). 2008. Portifolio Curso FOCA.
Ed. 2.
15.Organizatión Mundial de Sanidad Animal
(OIE). Report of the first meeting of the OIE
ad hoc group on stray animal control. Paris,
2006. 50p.
16.Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde
(OPAS) & World Society for the Protection
of Animals (WSPA). 2003. Relatório da 1ª
Reunión Latinoamericana de Expertos
em Tenencia Responsable de Mascotas y
Control de Poblaciones. Rio de Janeiro.
17.Sheldon, C. C.; Sonsthagen, T.; Topel, J. A.
Animal restraint for veterinary professional.
Mosby Elsevier. 2006. 230p.
18.WHO; WSPA. WORLD HELTH
ORGANIZATION; WORLD SOCIETY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS. Guidelines for
dog population management. Ginebra:
WHO; WSPA, 1990. 116 p.
19.WSPA; RSPCA. WORLD SOCIETY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS; ROYAL SOCIETY
91
Tracy Helman
COMMUNICATION, AWARENESS
BUILDING, EDUCATION
Capacity building of professionals in Dog Population Management
92
Introduction
The situation worldwide
for the capacity building of professionals in
Dog Population Management is varied. It is
without doubt that there are a wide range
of resources, tools and training programs
available for professionals. What is less clear
is the access professionals have to them and
how to select the best model to address the
issue for the local community - who will need
to sustain the program.
Communication
Clear and relevant
communications for professionals in Dog
Population Management are essential.
Many welfare organisations, universities
and government departments have formed
coalitions to synergise efforts and resources.
It is clear that coalitions have improved
communications for professionals; often a
coalition will promote and manage: training
programs, education resources and funding to
support professionals.
Agencies running programs generally
appear to have strong links with the local
Government in the country they work. Many
welfare agencies have formed coalitions to
build on and expand stakeholder support
and resources. Coalitions often co-ordinate
training, arranging experts from one country
to go to a specific region that needs assistance
and training. Many of these are promoted at
International or Intercontinental conferences
through websites, government advisory
committees and local promotions, etc.
An example of a coalition that has bridged
the gaps for professionals managing health
and dog populations is the Global Alliance for
Rabies Control (GARC) in the Philippines, an
alliance with the Bohol Provincial Government
and a Private Swiss Foundation 1. The Bohol
Rabies Prevention and Eradication Program
(BRPEP) uses community-based volunteers
to communicate the whole program with
Government, enforcement agencies, school
principals, students and the community
through meetings, films, distribution of
materials at a local level, exhibits, orientation
briefings, ceremonies and training programs.
Another coalition that provides
communications and guidance in a clear
and consistent manner is the International
Companion Animal Management Coalitions
(ICAMC), consisting of: RSPCA International,
Humane Society International, International
Fund for Animal Welfare, World Small Animal
Veterinary Association, Alliance for Rabies
Control and World Society for the Protection
of Animals. ICAMC’s goals are all based around
improving communications through
93
discussions, sharing ideas and data. They
provide a wealth of free resources in a wide
range of languages and being a large coalition
have wide ranging access to professionals all
around the world.
One issue highlighted in Australia by Animal
Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous
Communities (AMRRIC) is how remoteness
reduces communications and access to
programs. Distance means that “volunteers”
cannot easily access an area and so fly in and
out without understanding or respecting
local issues or culture, often never to return,
resulting in the local community becoming
distrusting of “outside help”.
Additionally cultural issues between
Indigenous beliefs are widely varied to that
of the western views held by the rest of
the Australian community. In a community
that may have 15 language groups,
communication is vital, and it is essential
to speak with the “right” people, who that
community see as “the rightful owner”.
AMRRIC have proven that it is best to use
graphic illustrations that represent locals and,
rather than try to cover every language, use
simple photos and drawings with limited text.
They have identified that people managing
dog populations in Indigenous communities
need to be visible, especially in a community
suspicious of strangers, and so generally,
veterinary clinics and even sterilisations are
carried out in the open air in public view. The
book commissioned by AMRRIC and IFAW
Conducting Dog Health Programs in Indigenous
Communities - a Veterinary Guide 2 provides
a valuable tool for anyone participating in a
dog management program in an Indigenous
community. The booklet creates awareness
for participants on what they are likely to
encounter in the community they visit,
including history and cultural aspects. It
advises the people going into the community
on how to be sensitive and respectful of the
community.
Conclusion. Professionals who wish to establish
a Dog Population Management Program need
access to information on how to determine
that a program is needed and what programs
and models currently exist. For those already
involved in a program they need to know
what tools, resources and programs are available for them; how they access the programs
and resources and what support is available
for them in the field.
Coalitions are powerful for sourcing donations, resources and promotion but may only
be talking with the community and groups
with whom they collaborate. It would be
worth while to consider if a single register of
all current programs would create a greater
ability to utilise resources and identify the
gaps.
Awareness Building
A number of respected
organisations provide resources for
professionals to use that promote awareness
of issues in Dog Population Management. If a
94
professional is involved in a coalition program
they generally have access to a wide variety
of brochures, DVD’s reports, research and
training programs. What is unclear is how
aware the professionals are of the resources
available or how aware the coalition is of
other coalition’s resources. Programs that train
local professionals increase the effectiveness
and sustainability of the programs and raise
awareness in the local community of the
issues and resources that are being provided.
There are a number of international education
programs that are delivered at the local level
that support and build awareness to the
workers involved in the program.
For example: “Best Friends” and the
International Fund for Africa have linked
Indian professionals to train Ethiopian
Veterinarians, technicians and dog catchers
on the Dogs Trust Program ABC (Animal Birth
Control) 3. They increase the awareness of the
local professionals in humane methods for
population control including Catch/Neuter
and Release programs. They also create
awareness at a higher level by obtaining
meetings with policy makers, legislators,
medical suppliers and Department officials to
support and promote training programs and
the Dog Population Management project.
Another International program that is
delivered locally, the Bohol Rabies Prevention
and Eradication Program (BRPEP), in the
Philippines, increases awareness by creating
a task force to enable the local community to
design implement and manage a program.
This is done by involving the local community
so they become part of the solution, using
well respected and well known neighbours.
They provide “para-legal” training to raise
awareness of enforcement officers, orientation
programs for school principals and training
programs for dog catchers.
The Bureau of Animal Welfare in Victoria,
Australia, uses pet owners’ registration
dollars to develop free education campaigns,
training and tools for Local Government
officers. They are provided with “hands on”
training in humane and safe dog handling
and how to interpret legislation. They have a
password protected website and access to a
wide variety of brochures to use for their own
awareness and provide to the public to assist
with community education.
The Australian Indigenous community is
extremely complex with intricate social, family
and cultural issues, which are not well known
to the wider world and vary considerably
between clans. One issue that appears unique
is the belief of “dog dreaming”, a belief that
the community is the custodian of land and
dogs. They believe that dogs are ancestral
beings that created their land, and so they
cannot be “owned” or have decisions made on
their behalf. Based on this belief most of the
Indigenous people have skin names, and dogs
and plants are also given names. A skin name
may grant a particular dog the same status as
a parent or grandchild or aunt etc
This dictates their roles and responsibilities
and so affects who can “talk” to dogs or if
decisions can be made on their behalf. This
creates many challenges for professionals
regarding animal welfare and management
issues in Indigenous communities in Australia.
AMRRIC have developed a lot of resources
to promote awareness of this issue 4. The
Australian Federal Government has adopted
AMRRIC’s guidelines and uses their model for
remote service delivery animal management
programs.
The Hong Kong Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals provides professional
development programs for officers involved
in dog catching and have recently started to
focus on targeted training to veterinarians,
police and the legal field all to raise awareness
of humane techniques in dog population
management and control in both Hong Kong
and China.
The document published by the International
Companion Animal Management Coalition in
2007 “Humane Dog Population Management
Guidance” 5 is aimed to promote awareness
and welfare in Dog Population Management.
The document provides clarity and
consistency on the all aspects of a dog
population management program including;
community engagement, considerations of
the community’s religious and cultural needs
and what needs to be considered in the
holistic approach for developing a program.
95
The most recent document to promote
a holistic approach for dog population
management professionals is in Chapter 7.7
of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code
(2010) 6. It outlines the responsibilities and
competencies required for all people/agencies
involved in a Dog Population Management
and provides tools for the implementation of
a program.
Resources that build awareness for people
who are directly involved in Dog Population
Management Programs seem to be increasing.
A positive change, of recent times, has seen
a move from building awareness solely in the
veterinary profession to increasing awareness
for all vocations involved in Dog Population
Management. This creates a holistic approach
to raising awareness at all levels to improve
the management and welfare of dogs.
Conclusion. A recent paper from Mexico iden-
tified an area that seems to need more work.
It found that private veterinarians, in Yucatan,
“did little to promote the control of dog breeding
or reduce relinquishment of unwanted dogs
in the city” 7. It needs to be considered how
professionals become aware of, and can access, resources, and, how to create awareness
to a private professional, who is not directly
involved in the program, and how to get them
responsive to the program.
Education (training and tools)
Educating professionals
in Dog Population Management is vital,
according to AMRRIC education strategies,
employment and capacity building at the
local level is vital to build a sustainable model;
enforcement; as a single measure in isolation
will never be effective.
Many developed countries, USA, UK,
Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong,
to name a few, have specific programs for
Animal Management Officers that include
enforcement of local regulations, humane
capture of dogs, officer training, dog
behaviour and euthanasia , but this is not the
case in many developing countries.
Most veterinary schools run surgical training
workshops and there are many collaboration
projects where a university or welfare
organisation will visit a community and teach
veterinarians sterilisation techniques.
96
The International Companion Animal Welfare
Conference (ICAWC) – International training
program, ran out of London and various
European countries, has a four day intensive
course 8 that covers training in: re-homing,
fundraising, building a shelter, media and
trap/neuter/release programs. There is no cost
to participate in the course apart from travel.
Courses that are easily accessible, for a large
number, at a local level, are likely to have a
greater chance of training future trainers and
therefore be more sustainable.
Some examples of recently commenced
local education for programs are: An Indian/
German collaboration (PPP Public Private
Partnerships) that started in 2010 in three
Indian cities with the aim to reduce dog and
monkey numbers. They have developed a
training centre in each city (Delhi, Hyderabad
and Shimla) to train veterinarians. There
model uses a master trainer – to train future
trainers in endoscopic sterilisation 9.
Another program through “Animal Balance”
has collaborated with the Dominican
Republic to provide a week long training
program in the Dominican Republic training
veterinarians and veterinary students on
“fast spaying” methods and birth control
injections (Esterilsol) 10. They have set up
similar programs in the Samoan Islands and
Galapagos Islands.
In 2009 a Malaysian consultant commissioned
CY O’Connor Institute from Australia to go
to the Cameron Highlands and present a
two day intensive practical course for animal
control officers and veterinarians on humane
dog capture methods 11. In collaboration
with the Department of Veterinary Services
and Stray Animal Solutions Malaysia, they
are developing, a “Stray Animal Capture &
Management manual” for professionals.
World Veterinary Services provides an
innovative program in collaboration with
India Project for Animals and Nature, at the
India Training Centre. It provides training
for charity managers, veterinarians and dog
catchers at their local training centres 12. The
program is free provided the participants
commit to implementing a rabies campaign.
They also provide “veterinary parcels” and
resources to assist in the establishment of a
campaign.
excellent resource for establishing a system
for efficiently and consistently counting a
population of dogs.
• AMMRIC have produced a number of tools
for professionals including, in collaboration
with IFAW, Conducting Dog Health Programs
in Indigenous Communities - a Veterinary
Guide. As well as an environmental health
practitioners guide “Dog Health - Programs
in Indigenous Communities” 16 that covers
everything from planning a program,
common diseases, through to local laws,
birth control and desexing and running
a pound. In 2009 with funding from the
Australian Animal Welfare Strategy they
produced a DVD 17 as an educational
resource for professionals and to use
in the Aboriginal Communities about
looking after dogs, people, country and
environmental health.
Conclusion. There are a number of training
programs but access to them, or knowledge
of them can be very limited. In order to be
sustainable, the programs need training that
is based in the community, where trainers
teach future trainers.
Education tools need to be culturally relevant
to enable the professional to become a trainer.
They need to be accessible for each user in
a language or learning style suitable for the
user and provide support to the trainee. A
stock take of all education tools should be
considered.
As well as specific training programs there are
a number of educational resources that are
available to build the capacity of professionals
in dog population management.
• Dogs Trust “A Template for Change - An
Adaptable guide to setting up a Trap Neuter
Return Programme” provides professionals
with a step by step approach to developing
a dog control program 13.
• The RSPCA International “Operational
Guidance for dog-control staff” provides
directions on humane methods to capture
and hold animals 14.
• WSPA Companion and Working Animals
Unit “Surveying roaming dog populations:
guidelines on methodology” 15. provides an
97
References
1. Global Alliance for Rabies Control (GARC)
- Philippines Bohol Rabies Prevention and
Eradication Program (BRPEP)
http://www.rabiescontrol.net/EN/
Programs/Projects-Overview/philippines.
html
2. Phelan S. (2007) Conducting Dog Health
Programs in Indigenous Communities: A
Veterinary Guide
3. International fund for Africa (IFA)
Homeless Animals Project (Dogs)
http://www.ifundafrica.org/projects/
homeless-animals.html
4. Animal Management in Remote and
Regional Australia (AMRRIC)
http://www.amrric.org/
5. International Companion Animal
Management Coalition (2007) Humane
Dog Population Management Guidance
Veterinarians and Vet Students in the
Dominican Republic Animal Balance
September 2010.
11.Jordan S. (2010) Malaysia Magic
presentation at Australian Institute for
Animal Management Conference. October
2010
12.World Veterinary Services (UK) (2009)
Multi-directional project with India Project
for Animals & Nature
http://www.wvs.org.uk/
13.Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs and Cats
Home (2008) A Template for Change. An
adaptable guide to setting up a trap Neuter
Return programme
14.RSPCA International (2010) Operational
Guidance for dog-control staff
6. World Organisation for Animal Health
(OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code (2010)
chapter 7.7
http://web.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/a_
summry.htm
15.World Society for the Protection
of Animals (WSPA) Companion &
Working Animals Unit (2007) Surveying
roaming dog populations: guidelines and
methodology
www.rabiescontrol.net/.../WSPA%20
Surveying%20roaming%20dogs.pdf
7. Ortega-Pacheco, A et al. (2007) A survey of
Dog Populations in Urban and Rural Areas of
Yucatan, Mexico. Anthrozoos volume 20(3)
16.Phelan S. (2010) Dog Health Programs in
Indigenous Communities: An Environmental
Health Practitioners Guide
8. International Companion Animal Welfare
Conference (ICAWC)
http://www.icawc.org/training/
17.AMRRIC and AAWS (2009) Caring for Dogs,
Community and Country DVD
9. Public and Private Partnership Initiative
(PPP) (2010) Population Control of Stray
Dogs and Monkeys
10.Clifford, E. (2010). High Volume Sterilization
Technique Training Seminar for Dominican
98
99