They always look like they think they are going for a walk happy... Until they get to "The Room"

I do not think they would object to this being posted in whole...it's interesting:


FAQs

We are constantly asked questions about the stray dog issue, both by people who think dogs a nuisance and by dog-lovers. These are the most common ones.

Q1. Why are there so many stray dogs here anyway? Why aren’t there any in London and New York?
A1. The urban environment in India has two features that encourage stray animal populations " exposed garbage and slums. Neither of these exists in developed countries.

Stray dogs are scavengers and garbage provides an ample source of food for them. In the absence of this food source, dogs would not be able to survive on the streets. Moreover in India and most other south-east Asian countries, stray dogs are also kept as free-roaming pets by slum-dwellers and street-dwellers such as ragpickers.

There are stray dogs in developed countries too " but they are abandoned pets, or feral dogs (meaning dogs who were once pets but now live like strays). They are unable to survive or breed on city streets since they can find nothing to eat. Most are captured, housed in animal shelters and rehomed.

Q2. Why did the municipal corporation stop killing dogs?
A2. Mass killing of dogs as a population control measure was started by the British in the 19th Century. It was continued on a large scale (up to 50,000 dogs killed every year) after Independence by the municipal authorities all over India, with the aims of eradicating human rabies deaths and the stray dog population. By 1993, it was admitted to be a complete failure, since human rabies deaths had actually increased, and the dog population was also perceptibly growing.

Studies by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Animal Welfare Board of India (Ministry of Environment & Forests) show that dog population control measures which work in developed countries are unsuccessful in third world developing countries, since urban conditions are very different. The urban environment here encourages breeding of stray dogs, so no matter how many dogs were killed, they were quickly replaced by more.

That’s why in January 1994, the killing programme was replaced by mass sterilisation of stray dogs. The sterilisation programme is carried out by non-government organisations in collaboration with the municipal corporation.

Q3. If stray dog population control is the issue, wouldn’t it make more sense to kill the dogs or take them away?
A3. Removal or killing of stray dogs seems to be the most obvious method of controlling the population, but it has actually proved to be completely useless. This is because even when large numbers of dogs are killed, the conditions that sustain dog populations remain unchanged. Dogs are territorial and each one lives in its own specific area. When they are removed, the following things happen:
The food source " garbage " is still available in abundance, so dogs from neighbouring areas enter the vacant territories.
Pups born and growing up in the surrounding areas also move in to occupy these vacant niches.
The few dogs who escape capture and remain behind attack these newcomers, leading to frequent and prolonged dog-fights.
Since they are not sterilised, all the dogs who escape capture continue to mate, leading to more fighting.
In the course of fights, dogs often accidentally redirect their aggression towards people passing by, so many humans get bitten.
Females with pups become aggressive and often attack pedestrians who come too close to their litter.
They breed at a very high rate (two litters of pups a year). It has been estimated that two dogs can multiply to over 300 in three years.
Since dogs who are removed are quickly replaced, the population does not decrease at all. The main factors leading to dog aggression " migration and mating " continue to exist, so the nuisance factor remains.

Since removal of dogs actually increases dog-related problems, the effective solution is to sterilise the dogs, vaccinate them against rabies and put them back in their own areas.

Q4. But what’s the point of putting the dogs back after sterilisation? Doesn’t the problem just continue?
A4. No, when dogs are sterilised and put back in their own area, the population and the problems caused by dogs both reduce. Here’s how:
Each dog guards its own territory and does not allow new dogs to enter
Since they are all neutered, they no longer mate or multiply
The main factors leading to dog aggression " migration and mating - are eliminated. So dog-fights reduce dramatically
With the decrease in fighting, bites to humans also decrease
Since females no longer have pups to protect, this source of dog aggression is also eliminated
Over a period of time, as the sterilised dogs die natural deaths, the population is greatly reduced.
Please remember, there is NO overnight solution to the stray dog issue. It is simply not possible to wish all the dogs away. With sterilisation, the population becomes stable, non-breeding and non-rabid and decreases over time. It also becomes largely non-aggressive. On the other hand, when dogs are removed or killed, new dogs keep entering an area and the population is continuously changing, unstable, aggressive, multiplies at a high rate and carries rabies. Which method makes more sense?

Q5. Why don’t you dog-lovers just keep all these stray dogs in your own homes?
A5. Dog-lovers have not created the stray dog population. They merely try to minimise it through sterilisation, and to keep it rabies-free through vaccination. Moreover, even if a lot of stray dogs got adopted, the basic problems of vacant territories and dog replacement would remain.

(By the same logic, people who love children could be asked to keep the entire population of street children in their own homes!)

Incidentally, our organisation does promote the adoption of pariahs and mongrels - so if someone you know is planning to buy a pure-breed dog, try and persuade him to adopt a stray instead. Although it won’t provide a large-scale solution, you will have the satisfaction of knowing you got one dog off the street!

Q6. Can’t some of the dogs be released in another place?
A6. Since they would be entering the territory of other dogs, there would be a lot of fighting in the area in which they are released, and in the process more humans would get bitten. Their original territories would also be left vacant, so new dogs would enter… and the stray dog problem would go on forever.

Q7. What about rabies? Don’t they all spread rabies?
A7. Only rabid dogs spread rabies. Healthy ones don’t.

The World Health Organisation recommends mass vaccination of dogs as the only effective way to eradicate human rabies. Mass vaccination has led to a significant decrease in human rabies deaths in Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Jaipur and Mumbai itself. Recently Fethiye in southwestern Turkey implemented this programme and dog-related problems have reduced.

The sterilisation programme includes anti-rabies vaccination. Our organisation also annually vaccinates a large number of stray dogs on site. Between 1993 and 2005, we have vaccinated over 37,000 stray dogs.

For more information, read our leaflet on rabies.

Q8. But didn’t dog-killing help in controlling rabies?
A8. Dog-killing was ineffective as a rabies eradication measure, since the catchers only captured healthy dogs and the rabid ones were left to spread the disease. Official sources also claim that half of human rabies deaths are caused by unvaccinated pets, so once again killing stray dogs is of no use.

The killing method has failed to control rabies in developing countries worldwide " including Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, North Korea, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Bangladesh, Nepal, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

Q9. I sometimes see dogs with skin problems and hairless patches " aren’t they all rabid?
A9. Skin problems and fur fall are not symptoms of rabies. Rabies affects the central nervous system, not the skin. Probably the confusion occurred because there is a skin disease called scabies. Strangely, this question is asked quite often in India.

Q10. How exactly do you sterilise the dogs? Are both males and females sterilised?
A10. Both males and females need to be sterilised, because while the females actually give birth to more dogs, the males are more aggressive and have much higher nuisance value. Complaints from the public are almost always about males.

Both males and females are surgically sterilised at our centre, under general anaesthesia, by qualified veterinary surgeons. The process is also called neutering. In the case of females the ovaries and uterus are removed, and in the case of males the testicles are removed. Therefore both mating and breeding cease. The dogs are kept for post-operative care for a period of 8 days and then released in their original location.

Q11. Ok, so the birth rate of dogs comes down over time…but what about dog-bites?
A11. As explained earlier, most dog aggression occurs during mating time, as dogs cross territories to mate and fight with other dogs whose areas they enter. Humans passing by get accidentally bitten in the course of these dog-fights. This problem ends when all the dogs from a neighbourhood are sterilised.

As testosterone levels come down after sterilisation, male dogs also become less aggressive. Stray dog females are usually aggressive only when they have puppies to protect, so with sterilisation this problem ends as well.

Q12. Dogs bark and howl the whole night " how can you solve that problem?
A12. Barking and howling occur during dog-fights, which take place at their mating time, so with sterilisation the problem disappears. Dogs bark when new dogs enter their territory, and as these migrations cease with sterilisation, the barking largely ends too. They also howl when they live and move in packs. When the dog population dwindles in size, pack behaviour also declines.

Q13. How would I know if a dog has been sterilised?
A13. Our organisation puts an identification tattoo on the dog’s left inner thigh, giving the month and year of sterilisation. Other animal welfare groups put different identification marks " some brand the dog’s outer thigh and one organisation cuts a triangular notch in the ear.

Q14. The dog problem may have reduced in South Mumbai " but there are still so many dogs in the suburbs. What’s being done about that?
A14. The human population and the number of high-rise buildings are growing very fast in the suburbs, leading to suddenly increased amounts of garbage, leading to a large population of stray dogs.

Our organisation has been working consistently for eleven years in South Mumbai, which is why the dog population has reduced there. Animal welfare organisations working in the suburbs started operations much later, and will need some time to show results.

Q15. How did stray dogs originate anyway?
A15. India has long been home to the Pariah Dog, one of the world’s oldest canine breeds. In slightly varied forms, the Pariah Dog has existed for over 14,000 years all over Asia and North Africa. Most rural families own at least one. As villages and rural areas turned into cities, these dogs became stray dogs. As explained earlier, they survive by eating garbage and are also kept as pets by slum-dwellers.


The stray dog population is regularly increased by callous owners who abandon their pets on the street. Many irresponsible pure-breed owners also allow their pets to mate with strays, producing a large population of mix-breeds or mongrels.

Q16. What is the difference between stray dogs and mongrels?
A16. Stray is merely a legal term indicating an animal who is ownerless and homeless. It does not refer to the breed of the dog. When pure-breeds are lost or abandoned on the street by their owners, they also become strays.

A mongrel is a dog of mixed or indeterminate breed. Both the terms stray and mongrel are commonly " and erroneously " used to denote a Pariah Dog. Pariahs are a distinct breed of dog, coming under the category of primitive or aboriginal breeds. Since they are not commercially recognised, this fact is not widely known.

In India, most strays are Pariah Dogs or mongrels. Once a Pariah or mongrel gets adopted as a house-pet, it ceases to be a stray.

Q17. My building society wants to remove all the dogs from the premises and release them in another area " is that legal?
A17. No, it is absolutely illegal and punishable. Under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act only the staff of the BMC or people authorised by them can capture stray dogs. The guidelines for dog population control approved by the Mumbai High Court in 1998 also prohibit the permanent removal of stray dogs from their original location.

Q18. Some people go around feeding stray dogs. Doesn’t that increase the stray dog problem?
A18. No. Stray dog populations are created and sustained by garbage, not by handouts from kind-hearted ladies! In fact, people who feed dogs generally get them vaccinated and neutered as well, so the population would actually decrease where dogs are being fed. However, feeding should be done in a responsible manner so that it does not cause any disturbance to the public.

Q19. Isn’t it sad that stray dogs have to eat garbage?
A19. Archaeological studies indicate that wolves started living near human settlements so that they could eat the garbage thrown outside. Dogs evolved from these wolves, and have always been scavengers. Unlike humans, they do not view garbage with disgust. In fact, even a well-fed pedigreed dog will often make trips to the dustbin when his owners aren’t looking. Of course, eating garbage has its risks, since once in a while a dog may eat something poisonous " but many strays lead long and healthy lives with no other source of food.

Q20. What should I do if I want the dogs in my area sterilised?
A20. You should request the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, preferably in writing, to pick up the dogs and hand them over to the nearest animal welfare organisation for sterilisation. State clearly that you want them returned to the same area afterwards. If you like, contact us and we will arrange for them to be picked up.

Q21. If I want stray dogs vaccinated against rabies what should I do?
A21. We can vaccinate them if they are within Mumbai city limits. Contact us.

Q22. If I see a sick or injured dog, what should I do?
A22. Our first-aid groups can treat wounds and skin problems on site. If the injury or illness is serious, call the SPCA on 24137518.

Q23. Do I have to pay anything if I want any of those services?
A23. Our organisation does not charge for any services. However, check with individual organisations regarding their policies.

© 2005 The Welfare of Stray Dogs All rights reserved. [/quote]

So...the possibility is the stray issue is a human sociological issue, rather than a bad care of dogs issue per se.

India is the same country that refuses to take action to control their rat problem, so I hardly think anyone should take them seriously. They are a third world nation for a reason.

That they are a third world nation doesn't mean that their observations are incorrect, this is just an ad hominem so if there's reason to discount their observations you should be able to make the case for it on the basis of those reasons.

Furthermore, their claims seem to be broadly supported, they site the WHO and other nations' experiences. So what precisely are you disputing about what they said?

a culture/society/civilization builds a reputation over time for competence and the ability to progress, or not. India has been a failed civilization for a very long time, not much of anything of value has come from there in the last 1000 years. It is always possible that indians will have something to say worth listening to, but this should not be expected.

Even if your gross generalizations were to have any basis in fact (and you responded to a request for specific evidence with absolutely nothing), they are totally ineffective in providing any evidence for your contention that the specific data about stray dogs is faulty.

This is our main approach to feral cats here in Wisconsin. it does point up a distinction that needs to be made between two terms that have been used interchangeably here -- "stray" and "feral." Ferals are populations of domesticated animals that have reverted, as a population, to a semi-wild state. They are born, breed, and die without human interference. Strays are animals who have been pets and find themselves out-of-doors. Feral dog populations can blur the line between the two between habituation to social contact with humans, but it's still an important distinction in terms of understanding the animal's interactions with its environment and likelihood for survival.

I think it is inappropriate to equate "stray dogs" in an urban setting with feral dogs in a rural setting. In the latter setting, the feral dogs are starving, they are a threat to well-cared-for pets, they are a threat to children, and they are a threat to livestock. And, as the Cunning Coney noted, farmers are not going to tolerate them, and they will probably put out poison for them, which is a threat to more animals than just the feral dogs. I repeat that the man i knew who killed feral dogs was acting in an humane manner.

Thanks, Patio . . . you made the distinction more clearly than i did.

This is something that struck me earlier but as I thought about it I found it appropriate as these dogs are breeding on their own in the wild and their scavenging is a natural (i.e. wild) state. Would they not qualify as feral? Especially in India's case I think a substantial portion of their stray population is the very definition of feral.

You are using technologies that Indians have contributed extensively to in order to call them a failed society that hasn't produced much of value.

If you dispute any of their claims, then identify them. Otherwise you are just issuing a blanket slur against a people to defend your indefensible brainfart about these dogs competing with humans for resources.

Between you and the Indians, they've contributed far more of value to this thread.

it strikes be a ridiculous to even consider surgical sterilization of unwanted dogs as a solution, this is way too many resources to devote to the problem. Even if we could develop crews that would do all of the work on a volunteer basis this still is hopelessly misguided. There is nothing to be gained for humans by allowing wild or semi wild dogs to be anywhere near human populations.

historical record is not slander. People who make poor choices tend to continue to make poor choices. Given that humans must survive and prosper, doing poorly is a bad thing. Also, once a people start to do either well or poorly they almost always pass on their ways to the next generation. This is why America under bill Clinton did welfare reform, because it was discovered that successive help incapacitates successive generations. It is the consideration of the prevailing opinion of the historians that India is a deeply ill culture, they are also likely to be involved in the worlds first full scale nuclear war. I see no reason to gloss over their incompetence in all matters that have to do with human survival. If they ever start living well that will be the time to take their views seriously and their way of life as a feasible option.

I have not accused you of slander, I have accused you of making a foolish claim, and then engaging in ad hominems against Indians just because the source I cite that shows your claim to be foolish is Indian.

That their claims are broadly supported outside of India is reason enough for your ad hominem against them to be pointless, but the truth is you really can't dispute anything they said and you really just want a diversion from your own stupidity in this thread that they contradict.



Your desire to disregard their views here seems a lot more motivated by the fact that you can't refute them and that they make your brainfart obvious.

So while you aren't taking them seriously, how about showing that they are wrong? Otherwise, I'll call it what it is, you are merely disparaging a society due to your inability to argue against what the source, that happens to be Indian, has said.

This is the very definition of the ad hominem logical fallacy. You are unable to assail the facts, so you assail the messenger.

How is it any more resources than it would take to kill them? You really don't think your arguments through do you?



They didn't make that argument, they argued that there wasn't anything for them to gain by killing the dogs. How about you address what they actually argued?

"This logical fallacy is called a strawman, and is brought to you by logical fallacy factory Hawkeye..."

Have you ever done any work in this area, hawkeye? Did you even bother to read the article? They've been attempting eradication for a century -- a hundred years, 50 generations of dogs, 4 or 5 generations of people -- with no success. They have killed 50,000 dogs a year and are still left with sexually intact and potentially rabid dogs in the street. Do you really propose that they continue with the same failed strategy? If so, who is really retrograde in their thinking?

On the other hand, you can replace some of these sexually intact, potentially rabid dogs with animals who are incapable of reproduction and vaccinated against rabies (with, I might add, one of the most effective vaccines ever devised). The vaccination in particular is a very effective protection, because not all animals in a population have to be vaccinated to be afforded signficant protection from disease, for if animal B is vaccinated and lives between unvaccinated animals A and C, then rabies cannot be spread from A to C through infection of B.

Frankly, given the tenor of your statements, it would appear that your response on this issue is motivated by blind bigotry rather than any consideration of the dynamics of the problem. I work on the problem, so I know a bit about it. Feral dogs are not a major problem in the United States, for instance, but feral cats are, and a few years into trap-neuter-vaccinate-release protocols for feral cats in upstate New York and southern Wisconsin (as well as other areas, though I haven't had any contact with efforts elsewhere) some subjective improvement is starting to be seen in terms of cat numbers and effects on wildlife. It will take a long time before statistically verifiable results are available, but the early results are promising.

As for your assessment of the resources necessary for euthanasia vs. sterilization, I suggest you attend a high-volume spay neuter clinic sometime and see just how efficient this process can be. With the help of 3 volunteers, my technician and I sterilize 25 to 30 animals over the course of about 6 hours once a week, without breaking a sweat. And that's while conduting physical exams and using first-world anesthetic practices. The numbers can be much, much higher if you cut corners.

And I'd just like to close by saying the if your characterization of India as having its head stuck up its ass, trying to address problems with old solutions that aren't working, surely this would be more applicable to the old and failed policy of eradication rather then the TNVR program that they have instituted more recently, apparently with the involvement of the World Health Organization.

the sterilization idea came from Buddhist and hindu societies where it is considered bad to kill any animal, this is why they are vegetarians. We are not thus, we will continue to kill and eat animals, thus giving an acceptation to stray dogs makes no sense. Inconsistent morals negates the moral argument for sterilize and release. If we are not going to sterilize and release on moral grounds then we should only do it on practical grounds. The kill method would be cheap if we did not keep the animals around for so long before killing them, which is what i propose. If will kill with in 24 hours the cost is for rounding up and disposal for the most part. This is going to be much cheaper than rounding up, surgery, and release, and then all of the human costs of having stray dogs around. One car/dog impact can easily cost $2,000 in car repair as just one example. The claim is made that sterilize and release will cut down on stray population, but kill will cut down faster and neither will solve the problem until we get pet owners to be more responsible. Their will be an endless supply of new stray, of new dogs to sterilize, it would be a fiscal black hole. Dead animals need to be disposed of either way, and it is cheaper to dispose of dead that have been assembled before death. There is not a single practical advantage i can think of for sterilization and release over the kill method, if you know of any please point them out.

What are you talking about, hawkeye? Feral dogs in India or stray dogs in the states? Get it together, man, you're incoherent.

given that most of most of us in this thread are American, I am saying that we should not follow the Buddhist/Hindu example on stray dog management, and why. Maybe it is not my speaking that is the problem, but rather your listening is.

At any rate, your Hindu/Buddhist argument for the origin of this strategy for manegement of FERAL (not stray) populations is baseless. It's been done in other parts of the world, including the United States, with feral cat colonies since at least the 1980s, and possibly earlier. And the point really is practicality -- sterilization of a single female and the return of said female to her territory can prevent the birth of dozens of young; destruction of the female merely results in making the resources she commanded available to another breeding female -- resources being the limiting factor in reproduction, not number of available females.