Dog Population Management: Case Studies

By /

Data and facts from case studies of dog population management efforts.

Jump to: Community Dog | CNVR | Culling

Highlights

Community Dog Program

Jump to: Abruzzo, Italy | Paraná, Brazil

Public Perception in Abruzzo, Italy

External link: 
Paolini A, Romagnoli S, Nardoia M, Conte A, Salini R, Podaliri Vulpiani M, Dalla Villa P. Study on the Public Perception of “Community-Owned Dogs” in the Abruzzo Region, Central Italy. Animals. 2020; 10(7):1227. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10071227

Legislative Background
  • Framework Law Nr. 281/1991: Prohibits euthanasia of dogs and cats unless they are dangerous or incurably ill.
  • Circular No. 5, 14 May 2001: Introduced the concept of Community-Owned Dogs (CODs) as an alternative to traditional methods.
  • Abruzzo Regional Law No. 47/2013: Specifically addresses the management of CODs in the Abruzzo region.
  • European Framework: Limited national regulations exist for the protection of community dogs.
  • European Countries with Pet Protection Laws: Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom have implemented specific legislation or codes of conduct for pet protection.
Public Perception of Community Dogs
  • Awareness: 59% of respondents were unaware of CODs and their regulation.
  • Local Presence: 24% of respondents reported CODs in their residential area (55% responded no).
  • Personal Involvement: 35% of respondents interacted with CODs outside their residential area.
  • Perceived Health Status: 5% rated COD health as very good, 36% as good, and 37% as sufficiently well.
  • Support for CODs: 50.3% of respondents supported CODs as a stray dog control measure.
  • Alternative Solutions: Those opposed to CODs favored adoption and responsible ownership (48%), birth control (41%), and new kennels (6%).
  • Caretaker Demographics: 28 female respondents (6%) actively cared for CODs, with 57% providing monthly support and 43% weekly support.

Research summary | Back to top

Program Implementation in Paraná, Brazil

External link: 
Juliana Tozzi de Almeida, Carla Forte Maiolino Molento, Community dog program in five municipalities of Paraná, Brazil, Journal of Veterinary Behavior, Volume 58, 2022, Pages 10-16, ISSN 1558-7878, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2022.10.005

Background
  • Community Dog Programs in Paraná:
    • Several municipalities in Paraná, including Araucária, Campo Largo, and Curitiba, have implemented community dog programs.
    • These programs involve registering dogs through the public sector.
    • Araucária began registrations in 2008, followed by Campo Largo in 2010 and Curitiba in 2013.
  • Community Dog Legislation in Brazil:
    • While community dog initiatives exist in several Brazilian states, including São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul, Pernambuco, Goiás, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, and Roraima, the legislation is often non-specific.
    • There is a lack of clarity regarding which public sector entity is responsible for implementing and managing community dog programs in municipalities.
Community Dog Program in Five Communities in Paraná
Dog Population and Demographics
  • Registration: 100 dogs and 51 caregivers were registered across five municipalities.
  • Gender and Age: 56% of dogs were male, 44% female; 72% were adults, and 38% were over 8 years old.
  • Size: 31% were small, 61% medium, and 8% large; all were mixed breed.
  • Distribution: Dogs were unevenly distributed across locations, with two dogs per location being most common.
Initial dog selection criteriaInitial dog selection criteria
YesNo
Life exclusive on the streets919
Established place of residence1000
Link with the community for at least 1 year928
Absence of bite history1000
Absence of chasing behavior5545
Fixed shelter6535
At least 2 caretakers per dog982
Shelters and Care
  • Shelters: Of dogs lacking fixed shelters; 23% were sheltered by caretakers during inclement weather.
  • Shelter Challenges: Reporting the dog has a place to shelter (51.8%), lack of suitable locations (22.2%), fear of fines (14.8%), neighbor complaints (7.4%), and theft (3.7%) were cited as reasons for the absence of shelters.
  • Dog Behavior: 89% of dogs allowed physical contact and were calm; 11% were reluctant.
Sterilization
  • Pre-CDP Sterilization: 46% of dogs were already sterilized (26% by caretakers, 14% by NGOs, 6% by the public sector).
  • CDP Sterilization: 35 dogs were sterilized during the program; 19 were not.
  • Sterilization Challenges: Political transitions (4), age (5), transportation issues (5), unable to catch (3), and community prioritization of female dogs (2) were cited as barriers.
Activities carried out by the SecretariatsNumber of dogs per municipality
AraucáriaPinhaisPonta
Grossa		PiraquaraLapa
Surgical sterilization6/99/131/59/1310/14
Microchip registration14/2011/201/209/2010/20
Vaccination against rabies14/2011/2009/2010/20
Polyvalent vaccination14/2011/200010/20
Parasite control – deworming15/2011/20000
Parasite control – fleas and ticks14/206/20–––
Transport for sterilization transport–01/104/10
Room for post-sterilization period––00–
Post-sterilization medication–0––4/10
*(-) Actions are not current in the secretariats.

Research summary | Back to top

CNVR

Jump to: Bangkok, Thailand | Dehiwala, Sri Lanka

Bangkok, Thailand Ongoing CNVR Effort

(Source, 2023)

CNVR Mechanism
  • Implementation:
    • Soi Dog Foundation initiated CNVR (Catch, Neuter, Vaccinate, Return) with a high-intensity rotational approach.
    • Focused on each district until at least 80% of the free-roaming dog population was reached before moving to neighboring districts, then returning to the first district to restart the next round.
    • Started in July 2016 with one mobile team, expanded to 6 mobile teams, and 2 static clinic teams, staffed by Soi Dog Foundation and a partner clinic, ‘Forget Me Not’.
  • Data Collection:
    • Recorded in Microsoft Excel for every dog reached by CNVR:
      • Type: unowned, community, owned but unconfined, or owned and confined.
      • Location, age (puppy/adult), sex, reproductive status (pregnant), weight, medicines received, operation completed, operating veterinarian, complications, and ear tattoo number.
  • Operations Data (by Sex and Dog Type):
    • Total Dogs:
      • Female: 131,198 (60%)
      • Male: 86,792 (40%)
    • Dog Type:
      • Unowned: 45,570 (23%)
      • Community: 100,300 (51%)
      • Owned Roaming: 49,318 (25%)
      • Owned Confined: 123 (0%)
Sterilization Rates
  • Survey Routes:
    • 2016: Sterilization rate set at 0.
    • 2020: Mean rate 0.48 (range 0.04 to 0.97).
    • 2021: Mean rate 0.47 (range 0.15 to 0.90).
    • Full 5 years spay-only data: Mean rate 0.62 (range 0.55 to 0.77).
Street Survey Mechanism
  • Survey Details:
    • 20 routes covering ~600 km.
    • Observed 1141 to 1626 free-roaming dogs each year.
    • Each route took 2-3 hours, totaling 40-60 hours per survey team.
Change in Free-Roaming Dog Density
  • Density Data:
    • 2016: 2.66 dogs/km
    • 2020: 2.47 dogs/km
    • 2021: 1.83 dogs/km
    • Average decline of 0.83 dogs/km
  • Resident Perceptions (2020 Survey):
    • Treatment districts: 31% saw “lots more dogs” 4 years ago, 28% saw “about the same” number.
    • Control districts: 28% saw “far fewer dogs” 4 years ago.
  • Changes Over Time:
    • Lactating females: Decreased from 23.4% (2016) to 0.9% (2020) and 1.4% (2021).
    • Puppies vs. Adults: Puppies decreased from 4.8% (2016) to 1.3% (2020) and 1.1% (2021).
    • Increase of 1000 CNVR operations/month predicts a 35.6% decrease in rabies cases/month.
Interactions with Street Dogs
  • Feeding Street Dogs:
    • 2020 survey: 19.8% of respondents fed street dogs.
    • Dog owners had higher odds (odds ratio = 2.29).
  • Acceptance of Street Dogs:
    • 59% were not accepting, 40% were “OK”, “accepting”, or “happy”.
    • Acceptance odds not significantly different between treatment and control districts.
  • Trouble with Street Dogs:
    • 40% reported trouble (e.g., bites, barking) in the past month.
    • Trouble odds 67% higher in control districts than treatment districts.
  • Change Over Time:
    • 28% said “troubles were the same as 4 years ago”, 22% had “”more trouble in the past”, 16% had “less trouble in the past”.
  • Signs of Ownership:
    • Increased from 32.5% (2016) to 45.4% (2020) and 79.8% (2021).
    • 39% annual increase in free-roaming dogs with signs of ownership.

Research summary | Back to top

Dehiwala, Sri Lanka Female-only CNVR Program

(Source, 2023)

Background
  • The CNVR program was carried out between 2013 and 2020, focusing on female, unowned dogs.
  • The number of sterilizations declined from over 300 in 2013 to 99 in 2020.
Observations
  • Dog count in study area:
    • 2013: 931
    • 2015: 802
    • 2017: 723
    • 2019: 642
  • Number of recorded rabid dogs
    • 2013: 9
    • 2014: 7
    • 2015: 3
    • 2016: 5
    • 2017: 3
    • 2018: 4
    • 2019: 2
    • 2020: 2

Research summary | Back to top

Culling

Jump to: Divinópolis VL Euthanasia

Divinópolis Free-Roaming Dog VL Euthanasia

(Source, 2018)

Study Results Summary

  • Total Dogs Captured/Recaptured: 328 free-roaming dogs.
  • Total Assays Performed: 583 assays, with 255 performed on dogs during their second or subsequent capture.
  • Gender Proportion:
    • Males: 59.1%.
    • Females: 40.9%.
  • Global Prevalence of Infected Dogs:
    • 7.6% (25 out of 328) tested positive by ELISA + IFAT.
    • 8.2% (27 out of 328) tested positive by DPP + ELISA.

Research summary | Back to top