The implementation of the Animal Birth Control programme must be stepped up to contain the stray dog population. Various other methods adopted by state agencies have failed to work
According to a report by Rakesh Ranjan in The Pioneer of July 25, there is a proposal before the North Delhi Municipal Corporation for setting up sterilisation-cum- dog-adoption shelters in a bid to control the population of stray dogs. The move is said to be in response to the decline in the number of sterilisation surgeries on stray dogs following the trifurcation of the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi into North Delhi, East Delhi and South Delhi Municipal Corporations. It is attributed to the location of the nine NGOs performing sterilisation operations in the area under South Delhi Municipal Corporation and the consequent decline in Animal Birth Control surgeries in the other two municipal bodies, and a sharp increase in the number of stray dogs in both.
Any attempt to make Delhi’s streets free of stray dogs by confining them in shelters will totally dislocate the ABC programme and cause their population to soar. In terms of removing them from the streets, it will have the same effect as killing them, which, when in vogue, had no impact on the continuing increase in their numbers. Several studies by eminent veterinary practitioners and surgeons have underscored the futility of killing. Dr JF Reece writes in ‘Dogs and Dog Control in Developing Countries’, in The State of Animals 2005 (Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Press, Washington DC 2005): “In Delhi, a concerted effort at dog removal killed a third of the straying dogs with no reduction in dog population”. Culling has been equally futile elsewhere in India.
In fact, it has failed everywhere else in the world. Dr Reece writes in the same article, “In Hong Kong approximately 20,000 dogs were killed by the Government and another 13,000 by welfare organisations every year…with little impact on the free-roaming dog population. In Ecuador, the elimination of 12-25 per cent of the dog population every year for five years did not reduce the dog population (WHO 1988).” He also cites the example of rural Australia and Kathmandu to make the same point.
The Guidelines for Dog Population Management, released by the World Health Organisation and World Society for the Protection of Animals in May 1990, gives the reason. It states, “Each habitat has a specific carrying capacity for each species” which depends “on the availability, quality and distribution of the resources (shelter, food, water) to it. The density of population for higher vertebrates (including dogs) is almost always near the carrying capacity of the environment. Any reduction in the 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 resources.”
The argument that such a situation will not arise if all stray dogs in a city or State or country are killed at one go, holds little water. Nowhere has such a venture succeeded. With all dogs killed, dogs from other areas will move in, particularly when garbage is lying all over. Canines are territorial. Those living in one area will not allow dogs from other areas to come in. That is why one notices that each area has its own resident stray canines with very rare additions to their ranks. With sterilised and vaccinated dogs returned to their areas, keeping unsterilised and unvaccinated dogs out, the authorities implementing the ABC programme can progressively move into other areas. Proceeding area by area, they can cover an entire city or country within a pre-fixed period—returning only occasionally to areas already covered to take care of sundry unsterilised and unvaccinated dogs that might have sneaked in.
If strays from an area, say A, are killed or put in dog pounds, those from other areas will take their place. People conducting the ABC programme will then have to return to A, where the newcomers, with no other takers for the resources of the area, will have proliferated rapidly, and begin neutering all over again. Indeed, the experience of A will be repeated in all other areas and the exercise of sterilising and vaccinating stray dogs will have to be carried on indefinitely with no end in sight.
No ABC programme can succeed if neutered and vaccinated dogs are not released at the places from which they had been picked up. Also, stray dogs that are familiar with their surroundings, know who is a friend and who is not, what spells danger, places where food and shelter are available, and have referral households that support them, are at peace with their environment. In contrast, stray dogs moving into a new area are often aggressive because they are under attack from local dogs, cannot distinguish between friend and foe, do not know where they can find food and shelter and are hence always on the edge.
The ABC programme lowers canine aggression levels. Since sterilised bitches do not come on heat, fights among dogs over bitches, which makes them more aggressive, do not occur during mating seasons when they are most frequent. This drastically reduces the number of instances in which a higher level of aggression leads to a greater intolerance of provocation and biting of people. Also, since sterilised bitches do not litter, there is no rise in their aggression level that occurs when they are guarding their puppies against threats-which are many, given the way in which humans treat animals.
In the Technical Report Series 931, WHO’s Expert Consultation on Rabies, which met in Geneva in October 2004, states: “Since the 1960s, ABC programmes coupled with rabies vaccination have been advocated as a method to control urban street male and female dog populations and ultimately human rabies in Asia.” Not surprisingly, the Guidelines for Dog Population Management, says, “Removal [including putting in shelters] and killing of dogs should never be considered as the most effective way of dealing with the problem of surplus dogs in the community: It has no effect on the root cause of the problem, which is over-production of dogs”. Besides, while sterilisation involves only a one-time expenditure on surgery and hospitalisation, shelters would involve ongoing expenditure on feeding and maintenance of thousands of dogs, which will be mind-boggling. Besides, their establishment will violate the ABC (Dog) Rules which are a part of the law of the land.