humane dogpopulation management

I n te r n a t i o n a l

HUMANE DOG POPULATIONMANAGEMENT GUIDANCEInternational Companion Animal Management Coalition

ICAM 03Who this guidance is for 03Introduction 04Terminology 05Definitions 05Content structure 06

Assessing the local dog population 07Creating amulti-stakeholder committee 07

Factors influencing dog population size 08Factors motivating people to control dog populations 10

Education 12Legislation 12Registration and identification 13Sterilisation and contraception 14Holding facilities and rehoming centres 15Euthanasia 16Vaccination and parasite control 16Controlling access to resources 16

Planning for sustainability 17Aims, objectives and activities 17Setting standards for animal welfare 17

Implemention 19Monitoring and evaluation 19

02

Introduction

A. Initial data collection and assessment

03

B. Influential factors in dog population management

07

08

12

D. Designing the intervention

Contents

E. Implementation, monitoring and evaluation

17

19

COVER

IMAGE:R

OBIN

CULL

EY/RSPCAPHOTO

LIBRARY

Annex A: Tools to assess dog population management needs 20Annex B: Creating a multi-stakeholder committee 22

C. Components of a comprehensive dog population management programme 12

ICAMThe International Companion AnimalManagement Coalition (ICAM Coalition) ismade up of representatives from the WorldSociety for the Protection of Animals (WSPA),the Humane Society International (HSI), theInternational Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW),RSPCA International (the international arm ofthe Royal Society for the Prevention of Crueltyto Animals), the Universities Federation forAnimal Welfare (UFAW), the World SmallAnimal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) andthe Alliance for Rabies Control (ARC).

This group was set up to fulfil several objectives, includingthe sharing of information and ideas on companion animalpopulation dynamics with a view to coordinating andimproving member organisations’ recommendations andguidance. Each organisation has agreed that it isimportant to strive to improve our mutual understandingthrough collaboration. We have a responsibility as fundingand advisory bodies to ensure we are offering the mostaccurate guidance, based on the latest available data andconcepts, to those involved with dog populationmanagement in the field. We also believe it is importantthat we endeavour to be transparent and to document ouropinions and philosophy whenever possible. It is to thisend that this document has been produced – it representsour recommendations at the time of writing, based on theknowledge we have accrued to date, and will be subject toupdates when appropriate. We are acutely aware of thelack of data in this field and will strive both to support thecollection of new data and to incorporate it into our futurediscussions, assessments and guidelines.

November 2007

H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M 03

1. Although in a different format and using more recent examples, thisdocument does share many of the concepts, particularly with regards toinitial assessment, included in the WHO/WSPA (1990) Guidelines for DogPopulation Management.

Introduction

Who this guidance is forThis document is intended for use by government bodies andnon-governmental organisations (NGOs) which are involved indog population management.

The ICAM Coalition believes that responsibility for dogpopulation management properly resides with local or centralgovernment. Animal welfare NGOs should not be encouraged,nor seek, to take on the authority’s overall responsibility for dogpopulation management other than through a contractualagreement, with appropriate funding and resources. However,animal welfare NGOs play an important role in guiding andsupporting government strategy, so it is important for suchorganisations to have an understanding of all the componentsof a comprehensive strategy. This will enable them to targettheir support where it can be most effective and to make thebest use of limited resources.

AimAs an animal welfare advocate, the ICAM Coalition believesthat when population management is deemed necessary, it isessential that it is achieved in a humane manner and ultimatelyleads to an improvement in the welfare of the dog populationas a whole. As NGOs we also believe it is important thatpopulation management is achieved as effectively as possibledue to limitations on resources and also due to ourresponsibility to our donors.

The aim of this document is to provide guidance on how toassess dog population management needs and how to decideupon the most effective and resource-efficient approach tomanaging the population in a humane manner1.

We are aware that the status, composition and size of dogpopulations can vary significantly between and within countriesand so there is no single intervention that will work for allsituations. Therefore, we strongly advocate the need for initialassessment and consideration of all potential relevant factorsbefore deciding on a programme design. The only concept weconsider universal is the need for a comprehensive programmethat is focused on causes and not solely on treating thesymptom, namely the roaming dog population.

IntroductionAll the organisations within the ICAM Coalition seek toimprove animal welfare as a common purpose, and as apriority. Dog population management is an area of concern forall of us due to the welfare issues involved.

Roaming dogs may encounter a range of welfare problems,including:

� malnutrition

� disease

� injury through traffic accidents

� injury through fighting

� abusive treatment.

Attempts to control the population may also present significantwelfare problems, including:

� inhumane methods of killing such as strychnine poisoning,electrocution and drowning

� cruel methods of catching

� poorly equipped and managed holding facilities.

Within any population of dogs there will be different categoriesof ownership. These are:

� owned with restricted movements

� owned and allowed to roam

� unowned.

04

There will be welfare issues relating to both restricted androaming dogs. However, for the purposes of this document,the aim of dog population management is defined as: “Tomanage roaming dog populations and the risks these maypresent, including population size reduction when this isconsidered necessary”.

Whether reducing the size of a roaming dog population isconsidered necessary will, to some extent, be subjective. Ineach situation there will be some people willing to tolerateroaming dogs and others who will not. For example, somemembers of the public and government authorities areconcerned with public health and safety problems associatedwith roaming dog populations, including:

� transmission of disease to humans (zoonoses) and otheranimals

� injury and fear caused by aggressive behaviour

� nuisance through noise and fouling

� livestock predation

� causing of road traffic accidents.

On the other hand, in some countries roaming dogs may bevalued, owned animals that are allowed to roam unrestrictedby the local community. A reduction in their numbers may beneither necessary nor wanted, but improving the welfare andhealth of the population and reducing zoonotic risks may stillbe recognised as beneficial and desirable.

A roaming dog can be either owned or unowned. It is theresponsible ownership of a dog that prevents it beingconsidered a problem by other members of the community.This document considers management options that addressboth categories (owned and unowned) of dog.

Owned roaming dog in Portugal.

RSP

AInternationa

l

05

TOTAL DOG POPULATION

CONFINED/CONTROLLED ROAMING

DOGS IN BREEDING/COMMERCIAL SUPPLY CHAIN

OWNEDDOGS

LOSTREUNITED

ABANDONMENT

RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP

REHOMING

Owned dogs - lost

Owned dogs -abandoned

Owned dogs -roaming

Unowned dogs –born roaming

Figure 1: Sub-populations of the total dog populationThe diagram shows the sub-populations into which the totaldog population can be partitioned. Note that these categoriesare fluid and dogs may move between categories, as indicatedby the arrows.

DefinitionsRoaming dogOne that is not currently under direct control or is not currentlyrestricted by a physical barrier. This term is often used inter-changeably with ‘free-roaming’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘stray’ dog.Note that this term encompasses both owned and unownedroaming dogs and does not distinguish whether the dog has an‘owner’ or ‘guardian’; indeed in many countries the majority ofdogs that would be defined as roaming do have an owner butare allowed to roam on public property for all or part of the day.

Owned dogFor the purposes of this document, an owned dog is one thatsomeone states is their property or claims some right over –simply put, when enquiries are made about a dog someone willsay: “That’s my dog”. This does not necessarily mean it is aresponsibly owned dog. Indeed ownership can range from:‘loose’ ownership in the form of irregular feeding of a dog thatroams freely in the streets; to a dog kept as part of acommercial breeding facility; to a well cared for, legallyregistered and confined pet. In reality, what constitutes dogownership is highly variable and fits along a spectrum ofconfinement, provision of resources such as food and shelterand the significance of companionship.

Community dogThere may also be situations where more than one individualclaims ownership of an animal and these can be known ascommunity dogs.

Responsible animal ownershipIt is a principle of animal welfare that owners have a duty toprovide sufficient and appropriate care for all their animals andtheir offspring. This ‘duty of care’ requires owners to providethe resources (e.g. food, water, health care and socialinteraction) necessary for an individual dog to maintain anacceptable level of health and well-being in its environment –the Five Freedoms2 serve as a useful guide. Owners also havea duty to minimise the potential risk their dog may pose to thepublic or other animals. In some countries this is a legalrequirement.

TerminologyFrom a population management perspective, we feel it is mostuseful to characterise the dogs first in terms of their behaviouror location (in other words, whether they are confined orroaming) and then by their ownership status. This is illustratedin Figure 1, below. Terms appearing in the diagram areexplained under Definitions.

Fisherman and community dog in India.

RSPCAInternationa

l

2. Freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom frompain, injury or disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; freedom fromfear and distress. Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC):www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm

H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M

06

Consider and prioritise factors affectingpopulation size:� Human attitudes and behaviour� Dog reproductive capacity� Access to resources

Factors motivating animal control:� Zoonotic disease� Current roaming dog population

� What is the current size of the dog population andsubpopulations within it?

� Where are the dogs coming from and why doesthis source exist?

� What welfare problems do the dogs face?

� What are the problems caused by the dogs (realor perceived) and what is currently being done tocontrol these problems? Who is responsible forthis control?

� What is currently being done to control the size ofthe population and why? Who is responsible?

� Who are the relevant stakeholders?

� Education� Legislation� Registration and identification� Sterilisation and contraception

� Holding facilities and rehoming centres� Euthanasia� Vaccination and treatment� Controlling access to resources

� Planning for sustainability� Aims, objectives and activities� Setting standards for animal welfare

� Identifying indicators that can be used to monitorand evaluate each stage of the programme

E. Monitoring (page 19)

A continuous process resulting in re-adjustmentof implementation

E. Implementation (page 19)

� Carry out activities� Maintain minimum standards throughout

E.Ev

alua

te(pag

e19

)Ape

riodicproc

essto

re-ass

essthesituationan

dstrategy

Content structure

This document follows the structure explained in Figure 2: A process overview, below.

Figure 2: A process overview

C. Components of a comprehensive dog population management programme (pages 12–16 )

B. Influential factors in dog population management (pages 08–11)

A. Initial data collection and assessment (page 07)

D.Designing the intervention (pages 17–18)

07

consideration and their input used to design and drive thefuture intervention. This will encourage ‘buy-in’ from thestakeholders and will inevitably improve the success of theprogramme.

Creating a multi-stakeholder committeeIdeally, it will be the duty of the responsible governmentauthority to bring together stakeholders for consultation.However, if they are unwilling or unable to do this, NGOs cancreate a working group themselves and feed back the findingsto the relevant authorities. For further information ondeveloping a consultative process see Annex B.

The following is a list of possible stakeholders to be consulted.Those marked with a * are recommended as minimumrequirements of the committee.

� Government * – usually local, but central will also berelevant for policy and statutes. Will be the key stakeholderif the programme is national. Several departments are likelyto be relevant, including agriculture/veterinary, health,environment (especially with regard to refuse collection),tourism, education and sanitation. (The government must berepresented on the committee).

� Veterinary community * – national governing body,veterinary professional association, private practitionerclusters and university veterinary department.

� NGO community * – local, national and internationalorganisations working in animal welfare, animal rights andhuman health.

� Animal sheltering, fostering and rehoming community *– both government/municipality-run and private/NGO-runorganisations.

� Academic communities with relevant experience e.g.animal behaviour, veterinary science, sociology, ecology andepidemiology.

� Legislators * – departments responsible for both writingand enforcing legislation.

� Educators – in schools and universities.

� Local media – for education, publicity and local support.

� International bodies with relevant responsibilities –World Health Organisation (WHO), World Organisation forAnimal Health (OIE) and worldwide veterinary associations.

� Local community leaders/representatives *

� Local community – both dog owners and non-owners.

07

A. Initial data collection and assessment: Understand the problem you are facing

Before embarking on a dog population management programme it is essential that the dynamics of the dog population areunderstood and measured objectively. This approach ensures the final management programme will be tailored to thecharacteristics of the local dog population, rather than using a single blanket intervention for all dogs or all situations.

Assessing the local dog populationThe main questions to be explored through the assessment areas follows:

1. What is the current size of the dog population and thecategories within it? This includes both owned andunowned, confined and roaming dogs, and where theseoverlap.

2. Where are the roaming dogs coming from? What are thesources of these dogs and why do these sources exist?Management strategies should aim to reduce the futureunwanted roaming population by targeting the primarysources.

3. What are the main welfare issues faced by these dogs?

4. What is currently being done, both informally and officially,to control the dog population and why?

a. Understanding what is already being done can allowcurrent resources and control measures to be improved andbuilt upon. This also helps ensure that any newinterventions will not conflict with current measures butrather replace or complement them.

b. Whose responsibility is it to control the roaming dogpopulation? This usually falls within the remit of theagriculture (or sometimes health) department, withmunicipalities often responsible for carrying out activitieslocally. NGOs can provide effective elements of populationmanagement, but in order to do this they should besupported in partnership with, or led by, the responsibleauthority. It is also essential that any measures taken fitwithin the legal framework of the country.

c. Pressure from the public can be very powerful and this isusually the ‘why’ behind control attempts. It is necessary tolisten to the concerns and opinions of the local communityand local authority; addressing these will help ensure thesustainability of the project. The justification for wanting dogpopulations to be controlled will depend on opinions as towhether roaming dogs are unwanted, but be aware thatthese will be determined by both the person you are askingand the individual dogs concerned.

Within each of these main questions are sub-questions andtools that can be used to address them. See Annex A for anexploration of the questions, but note that the sub-questionsand tools described are neither an exhaustive nor prescriptivelist, rather an attempt to highlight key areas of importance.

It is essential that all relevant stakeholders are consultedduring this process; representation should be sought fromeveryone who is affected by the dog population. As far as ispossible, a participatory approach should also be used; notonly should people be consulted, but their views taken into


08

The following is a list of factors that are frequently listed aspriorities in dog population management. These are split intothose that influence population size and those that influence ormotivate people to attempt to control the population. However,others may be relevant in certain conditions and it is importantto stay focused on what is appropriate for the target communityand the causes of roaming dog populations, not just the effects.

Factors influencing dog population sizeHuman attitudes and behaviourAim: To encourage responsible ownership.

Human behaviour is likely to be the most powerful force behinddog population dynamics. The encouraging of responsible andrewarding human-animal interactions will lead to both animprovement in animal welfare and a reduction in many of thesources of roaming dogs. The owned dog population may befound to be a significant source of roaming dogs and may sufferfrom many preventable welfare problems, and human behaviourtowards dogs will be the driving force behind these problems.

Several issues need to be considered when exploring humanattitudes and behaviour.

a. Local beliefs and attitudes may affect human behaviourtowards dogs. It may be possible to address these beliefs tochange behavioural outcomes. For example, a belief thatsterilisation will cause negative behavioural changes in dogscan be addressed through education and examples ofsterilised dogs in the community, so encouraging owners toseek sterilisation for their dogs.

b. Keep messages about human behaviour consistent. Theintervention should encourage responsible and rewardinghuman-animal interactions. For example, demonstratingrespectful and careful handling of dogs will help toencourage empathetic and respectful attitudes in the localpopulation. Do watch out for any elements of theintervention that could be seen to encourage irresponsible orcareless behaviour.

c. Religion and culture play an important role in peoples’attitudes and beliefs. Engage religious representatives andcommunity leaders early in the process, to explore howreligious or cultural interpretation could hinder or supportpotential interventions.

d. Interventions to change human behaviour should be tailoredcarefully to your target audience as different methodologieswill be required for different ages and cultures. It isimportant to understand the most effective ways ofcommunicating to each target audience.

e. Because human behaviour is such a key factor of success, itis important that owners are not only aware of interventionsbut fully understand and engage in all relevant aspects (seeCase study 1).

B. Influential factors in dog population management: Consider a range offactors that influence dog population welfare and size and decide which to prioritise

Completion of the initial assessment will provide both data on and insights into the local situation. The next stage is tohighlight which factors are the most important and so should be prioritised in the management programme; identifyingthese priority factors will ensure that resources are not spent on issues that have only a minor impact on the widerproblem. In almost all situations more than one factor will be important, so an effective strategy will require a combinationof interventions.

CASE STUDY 1An example of human attitudes that couldaffect dog population management

In China, IFAW and One Voice funded a MORI poll in2004 which revealed that approximately 76 per cent ofcitizens considered neutering pet cats and dogs to becruel. This highlighted the need for extensive educationand discussion before starting any intervention involvingreproduction control through sterilisation.

In 2006, there was a similar situation in Zanzibar whenWSPA and the local government introduced a sterilisationintervention. It started with low compliance, with fewowners willing to bring their animals for sterilisation.However, over a period of months, the educationprogramme, discussions with key community leaders andactual examples of healthy sterilised animals began tocreate a change in human attitudes, leading people toactively bring their animals to be sterilised.

Local people watching surgical sterilsation throughwindows of mobile clinic on Zanzibar.

WSPA

09

Reproductive capacity of populationAim: To balance out ‘supply and demand’ so that thenumber and type of dogs produced will match the numberand type wanted by the public.

In order to reduce the size of an unwanted roaming dogpopulation in a humane way it is often necessary to reduce the‘surplus’ population. This surplus may come from unowned,owned or deliberately bred dogs and all three categories needto be taken into account when controlling supply and demand.

The following issues need to be considered.

a. Reducing reproduction. Sterilisation can reduce thecapacity for reproduction, but it is important to select thetarget population of dogs carefully.

i. Dogs that are reproducingmost successfully.� To reduce the reproduction rate of the population most

effectively it is important to assess which dogs areactually producing puppies and successfully supportingthem to adulthood.

� Some studies of specific populations of dogs that werenot receiving care directly from humans (e.g. were livingoff the resources provided by garbage tips only) havereported that the population size was maintained throughcontinued immigration rather than successful breedingwithin the group. From this, it can be assumed that inmany cases only those dogs receiving some level ofcare directly from humans will be able to reproducesuccessfully.

� From an animal welfare perspective, the suffering ofpuppies born to females of poor welfare status (shouldthey manage to carry a litter to term) should beconsidered. In general, the mortality of puppies inunowned roaming dog populations is likely to be high.

� It must be noted, however, that dogs of poor welfarestatus at the time of prioritising could become healthy inthe future and therefore able to reproduce successfully.

ii. Dogs whose offspring are most likely to becomeroaming dogs.There may be specific populations of dogs whose offspringare most likely to be allowed to roam or be abandoned. Thismay relate to a lack of awareness and acceptance ofresponsible ownership, which can be a result of education,public and institutional attitudes and socio-economics.iii. Female dogs. It may be sensible to focus the maineffort of the intervention on female dogs, as females areusually the limiting factor in reproductive capacity. Itrequires just a few entire (un-neutered) males to impregnatereceptive females, so the sterilisation of even a sizableproportion of the male population may not lead to areduction in the overall reproductive capacity of thepopulation. Each sterilisation of a female, however, willindividually contribute to a reduction in the overallreproductive capacity.

iv. Male dogs. Machos. However, the sexual behaviour ofentire male dogs may become problematic, especially whenfemales that have not been sterilised are in oestrus. Adultmales may not change their behaviour as significantlyfollowing castration as young males who have not yetdeveloped their sexual behaviour. Hence young males maybe considered the next priority group for sterilisation,followed by adult males.

Note: Both male and female dogs can act as vectors forrabies, so if only females are being selected for sterilisation ina rabies-endemic area, males should at least be vaccinated.

b. Reducing commercial supply i.e. dog breeding. Acomprehensive strategy should also consider commercialsources of dogs, such as breeding farms or pet shops.

Commercial breeding facilities may produce poorlysocialised and unhealthy puppies, which make poor pets.Outlets, such as pet shops or markets, may also keepanimals in poor conditions and sell them on without properadvice about care or responsibilities. The ‘low quality’ ofthese dogs and the lack of understanding or realisticexpectations of dog ownership will leave these dogs at highrisk of abandonment. A combination of legislation andenforcement via inspections by trained enforcementagencies can be used to improve the conditions of thesecommercial facilities and hence the welfare of the animalsinvolved. Outlets should also be required to provide properadvice about care and the responsibilities of dogownership. Education can be used to ensure potentialowners know the options available to them when acquiringa new pet, including rehoming centres. They should alsoknow to expect a well-socialised and healthy puppy.

Access to resourcesAim: To reduce the access to resources that may beencouraging dogs to roam and to use manipulation oflocal resources to reduce the local roaming dogpopulation.

Dogs generally have access to resources (including food,water and shelter), which may be available directly from anowner within the confines of a household or provided on publicproperty when roaming. The extent to which a dog relies onthe resources available on public property for survival willdepend on the level of care provided by its owner. Someowned dogs are encouraged to roam by the opportunity toaccess resources on public property but do not rely on thesefor survival, while other dogs have no owner or are offered nocare by their owner and so are entirely reliant for their survivalon resources accessed when roaming. Altering the access toresources on public property will have an impact on theroaming dog population by discouraging opportunistic roaming.However, it may also potentially reduce the survival of thosethat depend on these resources.


10

Several issues need to be considered when exploring thisfactor.

a. The intervention of reducing access to resources shouldnot be used alone. For those animals identified as beingdependent on public property resources for survival,changes to the access to these resources (throughmeasures such as improved rubbish collection) should bedone in step with reducing this population or by makingalternative provisions for those animals.

b. Improving rubbish collection and disposal can reduce apoint of interaction between people, especially children,and roaming dogs.

c. In some situations, the main food source will be foodprovided directly by humans through deliberate feedingrather than refuse (indirect resource provisioning). Themotivation for feeding will vary between geographical areasand between individuals and this must be understood andtaken into consideration if attempting to influence humanfeeding behaviour, for example see point d, below.Education will play an important role in influencing thisbehaviour. Alternatively a reduction in the dog populationmay automatically lead to a reduction in resource provisionas people will not feed dogs that do not exist.

d. Altering access to resources in specific areas can be usedto alter the spread of the dog population. For example, apublic park that people want free of roaming dogs can bemaintained by removing access to resources, such as usinganimal proof bins and educating people not to feed dogs inthese areas. In some countries regulations exist thatrestrict areas where dogs can be exercised or can roamfreely. These regulations are enforced by environmentaland communal officers.

Factors motivating people to controldog populationsZoonotic diseases (diseases that can betransmitted from non-human animals tohumans)Aim: To reduce the risk the dog population presents tohuman health and the health of other animals.

Zoonotic diseases are often the primary cause for concernwith regard to roaming dog populations, particularly with localand central government who have a responsibility for publichealth. Because rabies is a fatal disease, with dogs being themost common vector for transmission to humans, rabiescontrol is often a major motive for dog populationmanagement.


a. The importance of zoonotic control should not be playeddown to relevant stakeholders, such as public healthofficials. It is important to explore together ways thateffective zoonotic control can be achieved while remainingneutral, or even positive, towards animal welfare.

b. Zoonoses are a concern for the general public and peoplemay at times behave cruelly towards dogs out of fear ofzoonotic diseases such as rabies. Controlling zoonosesand providing tangible evidence of this control (e.g. fittingred collars to indicate recent vaccination) to the public mayhelp to increase confidence and reduce aggressivebehaviour towards these dogs.

c. In some situations it may be advisable to introduceimproved zoonotic control to restore public confidence firstand then follow with other elements of dog populationmanagement, such as sterilisation or improved health care.

Roaming dogs feeding from rubbish in Peru.

Vida

Digna

11

However, a comprehensive programme of populationmanagement including simultaneous zoonotic control is theideal option.

d. The risk of zoonotic disease transmission to those involvedin any population management intervention must beconsidered. For example, dogs that succumb to rabies canexcrete the virus in their saliva up to two weeks beforesymptoms appear. All personnel working in close proximityto dogs should be provided with adequate training andequipment and given appropriate prophylactic(preventative) medication.

Current roaming dog populationAim: To reduce the risks that the current roaming dogpopulation presents to the community and to avoid poorwelfare of the current roaming population.

The current roaming dog population can lead to human-animalconflicts (in addition to zoonotic diseases) and can be amotivating and visible animal welfare problem. In manysituations the current population of roaming dogs will need tobe addressed for reasons of public pressure, public health andthe welfare of the animals themselves. The best method ofaddressing this population will depend very much on the localhuman community and the dog population itself.


a. It is important to identify exactly where and why human-animal conflict occurs. It may actually be possible toresolve some of the conflict through methods other thanthose aimed at population reduction, such as biteprevention education or establishment of dog-free zones inpotential conflict areas.

b. Human-animal conflict and welfare issues are often blamedon an unowned roaming dog population, when in realitymany of these roaming dogs may actually be owned orabandoned by previous owners. Improving responsibleanimal ownership and introducing registration andidentification of dogs are all methods of tackling this issue.Further details are provided in Section C.

c. There may be rehoming potential in the local communitythat could provide unowned roaming dogs with responsibleownership. To administer this, a rehoming centre orfostering system would be needed, although these needcareful management if they are not to cause welfareconcerns of their own. Rehoming centres can be expensiveand time consuming to run, so it is best to explore creativealternatives before commiting to a physical centre. SeeSection C for a more detailed discussion of this subject.

d. In some cases there will be no, or little, local rehomingpotential. In this situation the welfare of the dogs must beconsidered. In many cases, the poor welfare of these dogsand public pressure will mean these animals need to beremoved. If they are sick, injured or have significantbehavioural problems, such as aggression, euthanasia maybe the best option. If no homes are available, euthanasiamay be preferable to long-term kennelling for reasons ofanimal welfare, as dogs are difficult and expensive tokennel in the long term without significant suffering.

e. If the welfare of these dogs is generally good and the localhuman community tolerates them, it may be possible tointroduce a combination of measures to control them insitu, including: vaccinating the population to ensure it doesnot carry rabies; using an ‘ambulance’ to collect individualsthat are injured, ill or aggressive for humane euthanasia;maintaining dog-free zones via rubbish collection and goodfencing. These measures should be used in conjunctionwith others designed to tackle the source of this population.Further details are provided in Section C.

f. The mass killing of dogs through inhumane methods isunfortunately often used as an attempt to control thepopulation. There are many reasons why this should not bedone. Killing roaming dogs does not address the source ofthe animals and so will have to be repeated indefinitely.This method often meets resistance both within the localarea and outside, as inhumane treatment of a sentientanimal will be seen as ethically questionable, especiallywhen humane alternatives exist. If the inhumane methodsused are also indiscriminate, such as poison baits, therewill also be a risk to non-target species, pet animals andeven humans. There is no evidence to suggest that killingreduces rabies incidence (see Case study 2) and mayactually discourage dog owners from engaging in rabiesprevention programmes when these are run by authoritiesthat are known to cull indiscriminately.

It has been suggested that in some cases mass killing maylead to redistribution of the surviving animals into newly vacantterritories, which may actually increase the rabies risk throughincreased movement. It is also hypothesised that in a situationwhere reproduction is limited by access to resources, asudden reduction in animals through mass killing may allowgreater access to resources for the remaining animals, andpotentially their reproductive success and survival wouldincrease enabling them to quickly replace the culled animals.However, to date we are not aware of data that demonstratethese effects.

CASE STUDY 2An example of the ineffectiveness of masskilling for rabies control

Flores is an isolated Indonesian island which had beenrabies-free until a canine rabies outbreak resulted in atleast 113 human deaths. The outbreak began after threedogs were imported from rabies-endemic Sulawesi inSeptember 1997. Local authorities responded with amass killing of dogs, starting in early 1998. Approximately70 per cent of the dogs in the district where rabies hadbeen introduced were killed during that year, yet caninerabies still existed on Flores at the time the study waspublished (June 2004).

From Windiyaningsih et al (2004). The Rabies Epidemicon Flores Island, Indonesia (1998 2003). Journal of theMedical Association of Thailand, 87(11), 1-5.


12

EducationIn the long term, education is one of the most importantelements of a comprehensive approach to management, ashuman behaviour is an extremely influential factor in dogpopulation dynamics (see Section B). In general, educationneeds to encourage a greater responsibility among dog ownersfor population management and the care and welfare ofindividual animals. However, there may be key specificeducation messages that are important to highlight at differentstages of the programme, for example: bite prevention;selection and care of dogs; realistic expectations of dogownership; advertising the importance of, and access to,preventative treatments; and knowledge of normal andabnormal canine behaviour.

Several issues need to be considered when using thiscomponent.

a. Education initiatives should be developed in coordinationwith the local education authorities and carried out bytrained professionals. All stakeholders can advise oncontent and provide impetus for programmes but deliveryshould be carried out with expert support.

b. It is important to engage all potential sources of educationon dogs to ensure that messages are kept consistent.Ideally this should include animal welfare groups, theveterinary profession, schools, enforcement bodies and themedia (including animal-focused media groups). It may benecessary for one particular body to take on a coordinatingrole.

c. Veterinarians and veterinary students may also requirefocused educational efforts in the area of populationmanagement, including:

� the rationale behind or justification for populationmanagement

� their role in related public health issues

� methods of reproductive control

� key messages on responsible ownership for clients

� euthanasia methods

� how they can become involved with and benefit fromproactive population management programmes thatencourage responsible care of dogs, including regularvet care.

d. Educational messages can be communicated in many ways,including:

� formal seminars and structured lessons in schools

� leaflets and brochures provided to targeted audiences

� awareness raising in the general public through thepress, billboards, radio and TV

� directly engaging people in discussions as part ofcommunity-based programmes (see Case study 3).

e. It can take time for the impact of education on dogpopulation management to become evident, so methods ofmonitoring and evaluating its impact need to incorporateboth short-term and long-term indicators. The impact can beconsidered on three levels: the acquisition of knowledge andskills; changes in attitudes; resultant behaviour change.

LegislationIt is essential that the dog population management programmefits within legislative guidelines – and is preferably supportedby them. Legislation is important for the sustainability of theprogramme and can be used to ensure dog populationmanagement is carried out humanely. Relevant legislation canbe found at both central and local government level and issometimes scattered within several different statutes, laws oracts. Separate policy documents may also be relevant and canimpact on the emphasis or method of legislative enforcement.Changes to legislation can be a long and bureaucratic process.

C. Components of a comprehensive dog population managementprogramme: Select the solutions most appropriate to your situation

An effective dog population management programme needs a comprehensive approach. Ideally, the overall programmeshould be coordinated by the local authority responsible for dog population management. NGOs should work with theauthority to identify the areas in which they can support the programme and make most difference. All activities shouldbe selected based on the priorities identified in the initial needs assessment. This section outlines a range of componentsthat might form part of a comprehensive dog population control programme.

CASE STUDY 3An example of an education programme

Following 2004’s tsunami, The Blue Paw Trust ran aneducation programme alongside a mobile veterinary clinicon the south and east coasts of Sri Lanka. This involvedthe distribution of leaflets on dog and cat care, talks atcommunity centres and local schools, and discussionsbetween vet-team members and the public at the clinicsite. The latter also involved introducing animal owners totheir local vet, who attended the clinics to support theprogramme and become familiar with surgical sterilisationtechniques.

These education initiatives were planned and designedwith input from schools and local authorities (publichealth inspectors) and run in coordination with other localwelfare groups.

13


a. There is a balance to be struck between clear legislationand legislation that is so restrictive it does not allow forevolution in management practices over time.

b. Time should be taken to draft new legislation carefully,drawing from the experiences of other countries andrelevant professionals. An inclusive process with allrelevant stakeholders participating should be used,including appraisal exercises where input is actively soughtand incorporated from several sources.

c. Changes to legislation are difficult to achieve so it isimportant that submitted drafts are accurate and realistic.The end product should deliver laws that are: holistic;considered suitable and reasonable by the community;engage the authorities with their responsibilities; achievethe desired impact for animal welfare; sustainable.

d. Sufficient time should be allowed for any changes tolegislation to be introduced. Guidance notes should beprovided in advance to help with interpretation.

e. Legislation will be a ‘paper exercise’ unless it is enacteduniformly and enforced effectively. Effective enactment willusually require the majority of effort to be spent oneducation and incentives and the minority to be spent oncarrying out punitive enforcement measures. Educationabout legislation has to be targeted at all levels, from lawenforcement bodies (such as lawyers, police and animalwelfare inspectors) to relevant professionals (such asveterinarians and shelter managers) and dog owners.Successful enforcement has been achieved in somecountries through the use of animal welfare inspectors (alsoreferred to as wardens or animal control officers). Theseofficials are trained and resourced to provide education,handle animals when required and enforce legislationthrough advice, warnings, cautions and eventualprosecutions.

Registration and identificationThe most effective way of clearly connecting an owner with hisor her animal is to use registration and identification together.This should encourage a sense of responsibility in the owneras the animal becomes identifiable as his/her own.Registration/identification is an important tool for reuniting lostanimals with owners and can be a strong foundation forenforcement of legislation (including abandonment legislationand mandatory regular rabies vaccinations).


a. There are several methods of animal identificationavailable, and these can be used either separately or incombination. They differ in three important ways:

permanence; visibility; and whether an animal has to beanaesthetised when they are applied. Microchips, tattoosand collars/tags are the three most common methods; themost suitable will depend partly on local conditions andpartly on the reasons identification is being used.

b. If permanent identification of a large population is required,the microchip currently offers the best option since thenumber of permutations of digits in the code is sufficient toidentify all dogs, while human errors (transposing numbersand incorrect reading of the numbers) are less likely as adigital scanner is used to read the chip. Microchipping alsohas the advantage of being a global system, so animalsmoving from one area (or country) to another can continueto be identified (see Case study 4). Before instituting amicrochip system, it is advisable to check that the chipsand readers used conform to ISO standards.

c. It is important that registration and identification informationis stored on a central database (or that separate databasesare linked in some way), which is accessible to all relevantpeople (e.g. the veterinary profession, police, dog wardensand municipal pounds). It may require the support of centralgovernment to ensure a single unified system is used.

d. Mandatory registration and identification can help thepractical problems faced by shelters. When a dog broughtto a shelter is identified, it can be returned to its ownerwithout delay (avoiding welfare compromise for the dog andreducing stress to the owner). If not identified, it is bydefinition ‘unowned’ so the shelter can implement itspolicies (whether rehoming or euthanasia) without the delayof waiting for an owner to come forward. Both scenarios willfree up valuable kennel space, which will potentiallyincrease capacity.

CASE STUDY 4An example of a registration and identificationsystem in Estonia

Tallinn city government is the first to adopt a mandatoryregistration and identification system for dogs in Estonia.The system was set up in August 2006 as a pilotscheme, when the city of Tallinn commissioned acommercial company to develop a database to recordand identify animals and their owners.Municipal regulations stipulate that all dogs are to bepermanently identified by a microchip that has beenimplanted by a vet. The owners and their animals’ detailsare recorded onto a database, which can be accessed byauthorised personnel. The register was designed to beuniversal, allowing the same system to be adoptedacross Estonia. As well as identifying animals, thesystem has been designed to record animal healthinformation such as rabies vaccinations. It is anticipatedthat the system will eventually be used to issue rabiesvaccination recalls to owners when their dogs are due forannual inoculations, as rabies vaccination is a mandatoryrequirement in Estonia.


14

e. Registration fees can be charged (a ‘one off ’ fee orpayment each year) in order to provide funds for otherareas of the management programme. Although care needsto be taken to balance potential income againstenforcement, if fees are too high owners may try to avoidregistration. Differential fee scales can be used as anincentive for sterilisation, encouraging owners to keep onlya small number of animals and discouraging breeding ofdogs.

f. Licensing may be used when certain criteria have to befulfilled prior to dog ownership, for example when peoplewish to breed dogs or own regulated dog breeds(‘dangerous’ dogs). It could also be used to encourageresponsible ownership by requesting that people completea ‘certificate in dog ownership’ before they are granted alicence to own a dog.

Sterilisation and contraceptionThe control of reproduction through permanent sterilisation ortemporary contraception can be achieved through three mainmethods.

a. Surgical: The removal of reproductive organs under generalanaesthetic ensures permanent sterilisation and cansignificantly reduce sexual behaviour (especially ifperformed early in an animal’s development). Surgicaltechniques must be carried out correctly. A good standardof asepsis (the practice of reducing or eliminating the riskof bacterial contamination) and pain management must bemaintained throughout. This can only be assessed byadequate post-operative monitoring during the wholerecovery period. Surgery may be costly initially but is alifelong solution and hence may be more cost efficient overtime. It requires trained veterinarians, an infrastructure andequipment.

b. Chemical sterilisation and contraception: These methodsare still quite limited by the cost, the fact that they mayneed to be repeated and by the welfare problemsassociated with certain chemicals. Currently, no methods ofchemical sterilisation or contraception are guaranteed to beeffective or without risk when used on roaming unmonitoreddogs. However, this is an active area of research andeffective and suitable chemical sterilants for massreproductive control are expected in the future. Mostchemicals require trained veterinarians for clinicalexamination of individuals to assess their reproductivestatus prior to the application and administration ofinjections at regular intervals without interruption, which isnot possible for most dog management programmes.Chemical sterilants and contraception should be usedaccording to manufacturers’ instructions. They may or maynot have an impact on sexual behaviours.

c. Physical contraception through the isolation of females inoestrus from entire males: Owners can be educated torecognise the signs of a female dog coming into oestrusand can plan to ensure the female is isolated from entiremales during this period. Attention must be paid to thewelfare of both the female and males when planning how toisolate the female. Sexual behaviour can become

problematic as males will try to gain access to females,however, isolation requires minimal cost to achieve anddoes not require a trained veterinary surgeon.

When using tools for sterilisation and contraception it isimportant to consider their sustainability – dog populationmanagement is a permanent challenge so it is vital thatsustainability is considered throughout the design of theintervention. Providing free or low-cost services with noexplanation of the full costs may give dog owners anunrealistic expectation of the true cost of veterinary care.

A local veterinary infrastructure is a requirement for thegeneral health and welfare of owned animals, so if a local,private veterinary capacity could provide sterilisation servicesit is advisable to work to build up and incorporate this capacityrather than to exclude and alienate it. This may require thesupport of a growing ‘market’ for dog sterilisation services inthe local community by advocating the benefits of sterilisationand helping to support part of the costs, as well as supportingthe development of the service itself through training (seeCase study 5).

CASE STUDY 5An example of a programme to developsustainable population management involvinglocal stakeholders

An in-depth assessment of the local dog population,which combined formal household surveys and dogcounts with local knowledge, provided data on thesources of stray dogs in Dominica and hence perceptionof the ‘problem’.

As a result, the city council acknowledged itsresponsibility to humanely and effectively enforce themunicipal dog control by-laws. It then asked IFAW tocomplement its municipal programme through theprovision of primary veterinary health care (includingsterilisation) and education, through a targeted door-todoor community outreach program based on theoutcomes of the assessment. The aim was to limit thenumber of dogs roaming at source, as well as to addressother welfare issues affecting owned dogs, such asneglect, inappropriate confinement and poor health. Theethos of the project was community participation andleadership and so local vets were an integral part of theproject.

Following training programmes both in Dominica andoverseas, US- and UK-based IFAW staff provided longdistance support to key local staff and stakeholders aswell as written veterinary protocols suitable for localconditions but acceptable to international standards.Through this process the local community, veterinaryprofession and council will be able to take on all elementsof this project in the long term.

For a discussion of the results of the community-basedquestionnaire see Davis et al (2007), PreliminaryObservations on the Characteristics of the Owned DogPopulation in Roseau, Dominica. JAAWS, 10(2), 141 151.

15

Holding facilities and rehoming centresBuilding a shelter will not on its own solve a roaming dogproblem in the long term. In fact it may make it worse, as itprovides an easy route for pet owners to dispose of theiranimals rather than thinking about providing for them. Inaddition, rehoming centres can be very expensive and timeconsuming to run, hence creative alternatives to centresshould be explored prior to a commitment to build one. Afostering system, for example, might be more effective, costefficient and welfare friendly for the animals (see Case study6). Rather than providing a rehoming centre, which treats thesymptoms of abandonment and not the causes, effort shouldbe focused as a priority on improving responsible ownershipas a method of reducing abandonment.

If centres for the statutory holding of collected roaminganimals and the observation of suspect rabid cases alreadyexist, for example municipally-run and/or funded holdingfacilities, it may be more cost efficient to improve and expandthese existing facilities than to build new ones.


a. Policies will need to be written to cover several issues ofimportance, including sterilisation, rehoming, capacity (howmany animals per kennel and in total and what will be doneonce the capacity is reached) and euthanasia. These shouldtake into account the welfare of individual animals, the costimplications, the aims and objectives of the facility/centreand the impact of the facility/centre on the long-term dogpopulation management issue, including responsible animalownership. As this is an issue where emotional factors maycome into play it is preferable for the policies to be agreedby all staff at the outset. All new staff must be clear aboutthe policies and have the rationale behind them clearlyexplained.

Example 1: A clear policy and procedure should be agreedfor assessing the health and behaviour of individual dogs,bearing in mind the typical homes that will be available andwhat a new home can realistically be expected to provide.Inappropriate rehoming can lead to distrust by the publicand mean bad public relations for adoption in general.

Example 2: Following on from Example 1, some dogs willnot be suitable for rehoming based on their health and/orbehaviour3 and there may not be enough homes availablefor those that would be suitable. It is extremely difficult tomaintain a good state of welfare for dogs in long-termkennelling. In this situation, euthanasia should beconsidered both for the sake of the individual animal andother dogs that could be offered the opportunity to find anew home. To support decision making, euthanasia policiesshould be clear and transparent for all staff involved.

b. Protocols should be designed for each stage of the process,from quarantine on arrival to daily routines such as cleaning,feeding and exercise to record keeping and rehoming.

c. The design of the centre should take into account thewelfare needs of the animals, including both physiologicaland psychological needs. The site selection should considerpublic access, physical characteristics, services (such asdrainage and water sources), potential noise disturbance,planning permission and future expansion.

d. Finances for rehoming centres are extremely important ascentres are hard to close at short notice. Both capitalexpenditure and running costs should be considered. It isrecommended that both the capital outlay and running costsfor one year should be raised before commitment to acentre is made.

For further information refer to: Guidelines for thedesign and management of animal shelters, RSPCAInternational, 2006.

CASE STUDY 6An example of an alternative to rehomingcentres

In an east Asian city with one of the greatest humanpopulation densities in the world, a large stray dogpopulation and limited fundraising capacity, many sheltersquickly become overwhelmed. In many instances, lack offinancial resources and constant demand lead to adramatic fall in standards of care, resulting in significantanimal suffering and distress for the staff. As analternative, a new organisation focused on creating afoster network of dedicated volunteers to take abandoneddogs and cats into their homes temporarily. For its part,the organisation agreed to support the animals, paying forall medical bills, vaccinations and neutering, until long-term homes were found. In the first year the organisationbuilt up a network of more than 40 foster homes with thegoal of reaching 100 within the second year. The animalsare rehomed via the internet and the network has thepotential to house a far greater number of animals than ashelter ever could. The animals are all homed inappropriate conditions and the scheme has far loweroverheads and administrative costs than a shelter. Thenew organisation has become a success in a city wheremany similar projects have failed.

Adapted from Guidelines for the design and managementof animal shelters, RSPCA International, 2006.

3. E.g. See definitions provided by the Asilomar Accords: http://www.asilo-maraccords.org/definitions.html


16

EuthanasiaWhen running holding facilities and rehoming centres ornetworks, euthanasia will be required for animals that aresuffering from an incurable illness, injury or behaviouralproblem that prevents them being rehomed, or are not copingwell enough with the facilities to maintain a reasonable level ofwelfare. Ultimately, a successful population managementprogramme should create a situation where these are the onlyoccasions when euthanasia is required and all healthy animalscan be found a good home. In reality, however, most countrieswill not be able to achieve this situation immediately but willneed to work towards it, accepting that some healthy animalswill be euthanased as not enough homes exist that canprovide a good level of welfare.

Euthanasia deals with only the symptoms and not the causesof population problems. It will not lead to populationmanagement and must not be relied upon as a sole response.Whenever euthanasia is used, it must employ humanemethods that ensure the animal moves into unconsciousnessand then death without suffering.

Vaccination and parasite controlPreventative veterinary treatments can be provided to protectthe health and welfare of animals and to reduce the problemof zoonotic diseases. Rabies vaccinations are usually thepriority issue, but several other diseases can also bevaccinated against, alongside internal and external parasitecontrol through appropriate medication. These treatmentsshould be provided in conjunction with education aboutresponsible ownership, sterilisation or contraception andregistration and/or identification. The need for vaccination andparasite control is often well understood by animal owners,and so offering access to these services may be the easiestway to entice owners into conversations or agreements aboutthe other components discussed in this section.


a. Regular vaccination (especially if covering diseases inaddition to rabies) and parasite control is likely to improvethe health status of individual dogs. Females that were notpreviously reproductively successful may become healthyenough to breed. This does mean that the issue ofincreased reproduction needs to be considered andmitigated as required.

b. As with sterilisation and contraception, preventativetreatments can be used to encourage owners to see thevalue of general veterinary treatment and other populationmanagement tools (such as registration and identification),which are required for the long-term welfare of animals, soit is worth exploring how to involve the local veterinaryinfrastructure in providing preventative treatments. Theprovision of preventative treatments for free should be donewith care and according to the local economic situation, asthere is a risk of devaluing general veterinary services iftreatment is provided without cost or understanding of theextent of cost subsidies.

c. Preventative treatments will need to be provided regularly ifthey are to be effective, hence the ease of access totreatments should be considered.

d. Treatments can be provided via ‘camps’ (temporary, high-volume treatment sites), which can be very effective atdrawing owners’ attention to the importance of preventativetreatments and other population management tools.However, the risk of aggressive interactions and diseasetransmission between the large number of dogs that willattend needs to be mitigated by organising access andexits carefully, using a sterilised needle for each dog, andquarantining sick animals. Such camps will requireadequate advertising beforehand. There is also a limit tothe distance that the general public will travel for such aservice, so thought must be given to the number of campsthat would be necessary for the desired coverage, and theassociated logistics.

e. Encouraging regular preventative treatments allows for thediagnosis and treatment of any existing conditions.

Controlling access to resourcesDogs are motivated to roam in public places where there isaccess to resources such as food. In order to restrict roaming,especially in specific areas where dogs are not tolerated (e.g.schools and public parks), access to these resources needs tobe restricted. This should be done carefully and in conjunctionwith measures to reduce the roaming dog population, in orderto avoid dogs starving when food sources are removed ormoving to different areas to find new food sources.

This can be achieved in a number of ways:

a. the regular removal of garbage from homes and public bins

b. the fencing-in of garbage collection and disposal sites

c. the control of offal and carcass disposal

d. the use of animal-proof bins, such as those with heavy lids,or positioning them out of a dog’s reach

e. education or enforcement measures to stop people littering(and hence feeding dogs accidentally), and to stop peoplepurposely feeding dogs in certain areas.

Fitting a red identification collar to a dog receiving rabiesvaccination and parasite treatment in Sri Lanka.

WSPA

/BLU

EPA

WTR

UST

.

17

Planning for sustainabilityDog population management programmes often require highlevels of resources over a long period of time. These includehuman resources, infrastructure and finances. It is important toconsider the following factors.

a. Responsibility: Ideally resource requirements will be builtinto the budget of the responsible authority. Governmentbodies are most likely to be able to achieve sustainabilitythrough government funding. NGOs considering taking onresponsibility for aspects of dog population managementshould ensure that they will be fully supported andresourced, whether by the authorities or from othersources, before undertaking such responsibilities. Theyshould also consider carefully that their investment willneed to be long term and this commitment may challengetheir capacity to take on other work.

b. Owner involvement: An intervention designed to have animpact on owner responsibility could lead to thesustainability of elements of the project, as well aspermanent positive behaviour change. For example,sterilisation programmes could become sustainable ifowners are encouraged to pay for this service, while at thesame time the veterinary profession is supported so that itcan provide this at an accessible price.

c. Registration: A registration system with a small fee for dogownership can provide funding for other components of thewider programme. However, the size of this fee needs to becarefully controlled as large fees will lead to poorregistration rates. Charging a fee may not be appropriate inall countries.

d. Fundraising: The ability to fundraise locally will depend onseveral factors, including the culture of charitable givingand the status of dogs in the local community. Localpeople, businesses, trusts and dog-related industries(pharmaceutical, pet food and pet insurance) may all beinterested in supporting dog management programmes,either financially or through providing resources (such asfood or medicines). International grant-making bodies mayalso provide funding for specific project costs, but areunlikely to support long-term running costs. Again, thesustainability of each of these sources of funds and/orresources must be considered.

e. Human resources: There may be people willing to providesupport through unpaid human resources, sometimestermed in-kind or pro bono donations. Several professionscarry out pro bono work for the benefit of NGOs, such asmarketing, accounting and management firms.

The veterinary profession is an important human resource,not just for surgical and medical skills but also for vets’ability to influence owner behaviour. Qualified vets may bewilling to provide some regular services for free or at a low

cost. Student vets may also be willing to help out as part oftheir training and this can become a formal part of theircourse, although supervision will need to be provided.Volunteer vets and vet nurses from overseas may also be avaluable source of support, although there is the potentialfor them to be considered a threat by local vets if they areseen to be replacing their services. The sustainability ofthis resource is also difficult as travel costs may be high. Itmay be preferable to utilise these volunteer vets to supportthe growth and skills of the local veterinary profession.

f. Sustainability: A plan of how the programme will besustained in the long run should be drawn up at the outset;humane dog population management has a beginning butno end, as it requires ongoing activity to maintain the dogpopulation in the desired state. Including and building uponlocal capacity will support sustainability, as will thedevelopment of responsible animal ownership as individualdog owners begin to support population managementactivities.

Aims, objectives and activitiesThe programme plan should include clear and agreed aimsand objectives. It is also important at this stage to describeindicators that could be used to assess progress at each stageof the programme. The indicators will be used to monitor andevaluate the success of the programme (see Section E) and itis important to consider them at the outset as baselines arelikely to be required.

If a number of organisations are involved in dog populationmanagement, it may be relevant to draw up agreements soeach party is aware of the overarching aim and their rolewithin the programme. These plans should also becommunicated to the end users, such as dog owners andstakeholders that will be affected by the programme even ifthey are not responsible for the activities themselves (this mayinclude certain authorities). See Case study 7, overleaf, for anexample of dog population management design.

Setting standards for animal welfareThe aim of maintaining the best practicable level of animalwelfare should be clearly stated by the programme’sstandards. To ensure agreement and understanding, thestandards are best developed by a team of stakeholders.Decisions regarding the fate of individual animals should bemade on the basis of both their individual long-term welfareand that of the local dog population. There should also be aprocedure for regular monitoring to ensure these standardsare being upheld, as well as regular reviews of the standardsthemselves.

D. Designing the intervention: Planning, agreeing targets and setting standards

Once the assessment is complete, the priorities for the programme have been decided and approaches for tackling thesepriority issues have been explored, it is necessary to design and document the full programme plan.


18

The following are common areas of dog managementprogrammes that may require minimum standards to beapplied:

a. surgery, including aseptic techniques, anaesthetics anddrug regimes (e.g. analgesia)

b. handling and transporting of dogs

c. housing and husbandry of dogs

d. rehoming procedures

e. euthanasia – when euthanasia should be used and how itshould be carried out

f. record keeping and regular analysis of data – althoughnot directly affecting animal welfare, good recordingkeeping that covers the incidence of disease or injury canhelp identify parts of the programme that may becompromising welfare. For example, an usually highincidence of post-operative complications at certain timesmay indicate the need for refresher training for certainveterinary staff or a change in post-operative care.

CASE STUDY 7An example of steps for designing interventions

A. Understand the situation

A questionnaire was conducted in Municipality X, which was reported to have the highest number of complaints about roamingdogs. The questionnaire answers showed that 50 per cent of the people who owned female dogs reported they have too manypuppies to deal with and that finding homes is a problem. They also reported 45 per cent of the puppies as ‘lost’. The level ofsterilisation in the female dog population was found to be just three per cent. Owners reported a lack of confidence in local vets’ability and a worry that their dogs’ personalities would change as a result of sterilisation.

B. Prioritise the relevant factors

The priority factor here is dog reproduction – there is a surplus of unwanted puppies in the owned population, a need to increasesterilisation levels in owned dogs, and a need to address the vets’ ability and the misunderstanding of the impact of sterilisation ondog behaviour.

C. Components of a comprehensive programme

The components are: surgical sterilisation through local veterinary infrastructure; the education of both vets in surgery and localdog owners on the importance of sterilisation.

D. Design the intervention

From this, an aim was written: to reduce the number of unwanted and roaming dogs susceptible to disease and injury on thestreets of Municipality X. In order to achieve this aim, several objectives were written, one of which was to increase sterilisation ofowned female dogs from three per cent to 50 per cent in two years. Fifty per cent was chosen as a target because 50 per cent ofthe owners reported a problem with excess puppies. Two years was chosen both because of practical resources (clinic time andfunding) and to allow time for the impact of the programme to become evident.

This objective will involve activities such as:� training to improve surgical sterilisation skills in four local vets, which is paired with two incentives: a voucher system allowing

vets to offer low-cost sterilisation services subsidised by a local NGO and a simple marketing plan for the clinic around thesubject of low-cost sterilisation

� an education programme, using posters and the local community network focused on the local religious leader, which explainsthe benefits of sterilisation to dog owners with regards to health and behaviour.

Surgery using aseptic techniques, Thailand.

RAY

BUTC

HER/PHUKETANIM

ALWELF

ARESOCIETY

19

ImplementationThis should be straightforward if priorities have been chosensensibly and the design stage carried out in detail. This stagemay require a phased approach, using pilot areas which aremonitored carefully to ensure any problems are tackled beforethe full programme is launched. The initial stages should notbe rushed into. There will be ‘teething’ problems, and frequentupdates will be required between key stakeholders to monitorclosely and improve progress in the early phases.

Monitoring and evaluationOnce the programme is underway it will be necessary toregularly monitor progress and evaluate effectiveness. This isnecessary:

a. to help improve performance, by highlighting both problemsand successful elements of interventions

b. for accountability, to demonstrate to donors, supporters andpeople at the receiving end of the intervention that theprogramme is achieving its aims.

Monitoring is a continuous process that aims to check theprogramme is going to plan and allows for regularadjustments. Evaluation is a periodic assessment, usuallycarried out at particular milestones to check the programme ishaving the desired and stated impact. Evaluation should alsobe used as the basis for decisions regarding future investmentand programme continuation. Both procedures involve the

measurement of indicators selected at the design stagebecause they reflect important components of the programmeat different stages (see Case study 8 for an example).

Monitoring and evaluation should be an important part of aprogramme but not overly time consuming or expensive.Choosing the right list of indicators, with regard to their abilityto reflect the changes that need to be measured and can bemeasured with a degree of accuracy, will be key to thesuccess of this stage. In order to choose these indicators it isessential to have a clear plan of what the programme issetting out to achieve and why, and how the intervention willaccomplish this.

Ideally monitoring and evaluation will be approached in aparticipatory manner where all relevant stakeholders areconsulted and involved in making recommendations. It is alsoimportant to remain open minded and positive during thisprocess, as things may change contrary to expectations. Theexposure of problems or failures should be seen asopportunities to improve the programme, rather than mistakesrequiring justification.

The concept of monitoring and evaluation is not complex, butthere are many decisions to be made regarding what tomeasure, how this is to be done and how the results should beanalysed and used. These issues and others are discussed inmuch more detail in other texts, for example go to:www.intrac.org.

.

E. Implementation, monitoring and evaluation: check the programme isachieving its goals

CASE STUDY 8Project matrix (truncated project ‘logframe’ – only one output listed and no assumptions) showing suggestedindicators for each stage of the project initially introduced in Case study 7

HIERARCHY OF OBJECTIVES INDICATOR MEANS OF VERIFICATIONA measurement, number, fact, How you will measure theopinion or perception that reflects indicatora specific condition or situation

IMPACT/GOAL Reduction/change in % decrease in number of roaming Biannual population survey (directReflects the change unwanted and roaming puppies and lactating female dogs counts in sample of 500m2created by the project dogs in Municipality X in Municipality X over 2 years blocks)

OUTCOME/PURPOSE Improved community % of sterilised females increases Annual household questionnaireReflects the effect of ability to control to 50% in 2 yearsthe project reproductive capacity

of their dogs % increase in community Community focus groupacceptance of dog sterilisation discussions

OUTPUT 1 4 low-cost sterilisation Number of dogs sterilised and Participating clinics’ recordsReflects the effort put in schemes in Municipality X treated per monthby the project

ACTIVITIES 1 1.1 Training for 4 local Number of clinics that qualify Clinic agreementsReflects what the project vets and sign up to the schemewill actually do 1.2 Develop voucher

system1.3 Marketing of low costservice


SUGGESTIONS FOR TOOLS/METHODS

Observe the number of dogs in each age class (puppy, juvenile and adult)of the roaming dog population over time. Observe litters of puppies duringthe breeding season from both roaming owned and unowned populationsto see how many survive in the two populations.

Questionnaire for owners – ask whether their dogs are confined to privateproperty or whether they (or somebody else they know, if admitting thisbehaviour themselves is likely to be a problem) have ever abandoned adog.

Attitudes and beliefs behind such behaviours may be hard to measurequantifiably (using a numerical regular scale). Discussions or open-formatinterviews with groups of people with relevant experience (such as dogowners or animal health workers) can help to bring out opinions. Keepthese groups small and informal and allow free discussion around topics,using prompting questions to guide the discussion.

2. To understand where roaming dogs are coming from. In other words, what are the sources of thesedogs and why do these sources exist?

1. To establish an estimate of the size of the dog population and its categories

20

SUB–QUESTIONS

How many dogs are currently in the categories of‘roaming’ and ‘confined’? Note that dogs that areroaming will be both unowned and owned roamingdogs.

.

ANNEX A: Tools to assess dog population management needs

This annex aims to explore the overarching questions posed in Section A. Under each heading is a series of sub-questionspaired with suggestions for tools that could be used to investigate the answers. These are not meant to provide anexhaustive or prescriptive list, but rather encourage exploration into the issue.

Pet owner survey in Dominica.

IFAW

/S.COOK

SUGGESTIONS FOR TOOLS/METHODS

A survey of the roaming dog population paired with a questionnaire forlocal dog owners asking for the number of dogs that would normally roamat the time the street survey was conducted. Note that questionnairesrequire experience to design in order to obtain truthful and relevant data.

SUB–QUESTIONS

How is the roaming dog population changing over timeand how is it maintained? Is the unowned dogpopulation itself capable of successful reproduction?Can unowned dogs raise puppies to adulthood?

Are unwanted owned dogs abandoned in the street tobecome part of the roaming population? Are owneddogs allowed to roam freely?

If abandonment or roaming is an issue, why does itoccur? What are the beliefs, attitudes or environmentalfactors that underlie these behaviours?

SUB–QUESTIONS SUGGESTIONS FOR TOOLS/METHODS

4.What is currently being done both informally and officially to control the dog population, andwhy?

3.What are thewelfare problems being experienced by the dog population andwhy do these occur?

21

SUB–QUESTIONS SUGGESTIONS FOR TOOLS/METHODS

Measuring welfare can be approached either through animal-based assessment (direct observation of the animals) or resource-basedassessment (measuring the access animals have to resources important to their welfare) or a combination of both. Measuring welfare indog populations, especially those populations that include a proportion of roaming animals, is a relatively understudied area. However, itis important to us as animal welfare advocates that we attempt to address this in some of the important sub-questions.

What is the welfare status of the roaming dogpopulation and how prevalent are welfare problems?

What is the welfare status of owned dogs and howprevalent are welfare problems? Do owners providetheir dogs with the resources they require for goodwelfare?

What is the welfare status of dogs affected by thecurrent control measures? For example, what is thewelfare status of dogs in shelters? What euthanasiamethods are used, if any?

What are the survival rates of different types (confined,unowned or owned roaming) or age groups of dogs?Survival can indicate welfare status, as a shortaverage survival would suggest poor health.

Direct observation of roaming dogs for health status, such as bodycondition scores, lameness, injuries and skin conditions.

Direct observation of owned dogs for health status and behaviouralresponse to owner (to explore the previous treatment of the dog by theowner). Questionnaire for owners regarding the provision of resourcessuch as health care, food, water and shelter.

Direct observation of dogs in shelters, using the same criteria used forother categories of dogs to allow for comparison. Discussions with shelterauthorities on the resources provided and methods used for euthanasia.

Survival of unowned roaming populations is hard to measure withoutfollowing a sample of individuals over time. A questionnaire for ownersasking about dogs in their household that have died over the past year canprovide an estimate of survival of owned animals and the reasons whyanimals died (note that the survival of young puppies and adults should bedealt with separately, as these figures are often very different).

Do people think there is a problem with dog populationmanagement locally? What problems are caused bythe dogs themselves?

What is currently being done to manage the dogpopulation?

What legislation exists that relates to dog populationmanagement?

Discussions with small groups of people from a range of backgrounds.Keep groups informal, allow discussion around topics and guide with well-placed prompting questions.Ask the relevant local authorities about the nature, number andgeographical location of complaints.

Discussions with all relevant stakeholders to understand past, current andany future plans for dog population management. Consider localgovernment, veterinary organisations, NGOs and dog owners themselves.

Collect information from both central and local government on legislationrelating to dogs – it is possible that relevant regulations exist in more thanone Act (e.g. disease control, veterinary regulations, environmentalregulations).


22

� Create a working group of people with an interest in andresponsibility for dog population management (see SectionA for a list of possible stakeholders). This working groupwould have responsibility for designing and carrying out theinitial data collection and assessment of the local dogpopulation.

� Following an initial assessment, this working group can beevolved to a formal committee with representation fromeach relevant stakeholder. The committee should at thevery least have terms of reference, a list of membershipand a role for members, a commitment to regular meetings,updates of an action plan and a clear aim. It may bepossible to base this committee on similar models, forexample those created for improving human health. It mayalso be relevant to invite experienced members of thosecommittees onto the dog population managementcommittee.

� Each member of the committee is responsible forrepresenting the needs of their stakeholders with regards todog population management, for example public healthorganisations would require control of zoonotic disease,NGOs would require an improvement in welfare, themunicipal council may require a reduction in nuisancereports. A set of objectives can be drafted based on thedata produced by the initial assessment and the needs ofeach stakeholder. The programme plan can form aroundthis with clear understanding of the aims and what will beseen as success or failure by each stakeholder (seeSection D for more information on creating the plan).

� The financial commitment required to make the programmesuccessful, both in the short and long term, should bediscussed and agreed by the committee. This shouldinclude the expected investment by each stakeholder.

� The responsibility of each committee member in carryingout, monitoring and evaluating the programme needs to bemade clear. Once the programme is launched, regularmeetings will be required to update on progress anddiscuss the results of monitoring and evaluation and henceany changes needed to the programme.

� The committee will essentially be permanent as dogpopulation management is a permanent challenge,although the membership will inevitably change and evolve.

The following are suggestions for improving thefunctioning of the committee:

� Seminars or workshops can be used to inspire and developthe programme at key points, including the planning stage.This sort of event can also draw on expertise not normallypresent in the committee.

� Clarifying roles, including details such as administrativeissues (e.g. minutes and meeting arrangements), will helpcreate realistic expectations. These should also beregularly reviewed and rotated, if appropriate.

� As far as possible the committee should be transparent, toencourage public confidence in the programme.

� The committee will inevitably experience differences ofopinion, so clear guidance and an understanding of howsuch situations will be managed will help maintaincohesion.

.

ANNEX B: Creating a multi-stakeholder committee

The following is an example of a process that can be used to achieve stakeholder involvement and buy-in; such aprocess can be adapted for different-sized programmes (from small community projects to national programmes).

The Alliance for Rabies ControlUK registered charity number: SC 07www.rabiescontrol.org

Humane Society International2100 L Street NW, Washington, DC, 20037, United StatesTel: +1 (202) 452 1100www.humanesociety.org

International Fund for Animal WelfareInternational Headquarters, 411 Main Street, PO Box 193Yarmouth Port, MA 02675, United StatesTel: +1 (508) 744 2000

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals InternationalWilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS, Unites KingdomTel: +44 300 1234 555www. rspca.org.uk

World Small Animal Veterinary Associationwww.wsava.org

The World Society for the Protection of Animals89 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP, United KingdomTel: +44 (020) 7587 5000www.wspa-international.org

I n te r n a t i o n a l

0310

07

humane dogpopulation management

Documents

Transcript of humane dogpopulation management