Data and facts about the free-roaming dogs of India.
Highlights
- Stray dogs are more common in lower-income neighborhoods than in wealthier ones. This leads to different opinions about how to handle the problem.
- In Bangalore, 10-18% of households support most of the stray dogs. In Goa, almost 40% of households feed the dogs.
- Where stray dogs get food depends on the location. In Bangalore, people often feed them, but in Shirsuphal, garbage is the main food source.
- Indians are more used to living with stray dogs than Americans. Americans often suggest adopting stray dogs as a solution.
Jump to: Overview | Community Perception
Overview
- India has an estimated 118 million domestic dogs (Source, 2021).
- Since 2001, Indian law has required the use of sterilization programs (ABC) to control the number of stray dogs (Source, 2021).
Community Perception
Jump to: Bangalore | Goa | Shirsuphal village, West India | India and US
Perception Towards Free-Roaming Dogs in Bangalore
External Link:
Bhalla SJ, Kemmers R, Vasques A, Vanak AT. ‘Stray appetites’: a socio-ecological analysis of free-ranging dogs living alongside human communities in Bangalore, India. Urban Ecosyst. 2021;24(6):1245-1258. doi: 10.1007/s11252-021-01097-4. Epub 2021 Feb 16. PMID: 34720573; PMCID: PMC8551108. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11252-021-01097-4
History
- In 2019, there were about 300,000 stray dogs in Bangalore, compared to 12 million people.
- 46% of the stray dogs had not been sterilized.
- The number of stray dogs had increased significantly since 2013, when there were about 185,000 dogs.
Observation By Capture-Recapture Survey
| Upper-Class Neighbourhoods | Middle-Class Neighbourhoods | Lower-Class Neighbourhoods | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean population of FRD per neighbourhood | 17.0 | 39.8 | 57.4 |
| Mean number of houses per neighbourhood | 123 | 176 | 233 |
| Estimated percentage of households that feed FRD | 10% | 16% | 18% |
- The number of stray dogs varied widely across different areas, from 192 to 1888 dogs per square kilometer.
- The availability of food from houses, bakeries, and garbage was most important in predicting the number of stray dogs.
Community Attitude By Interviews
| Class of Neighbourhoods | Upper | Upper Middle | Middle | Lower Middle | Lower |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respondents providing opinion on removing FRD | 36 | 11 | 15 | 7 | 16 |
| Have pet / remove | 9 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Have pet / don’t remove | 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| No pet / remove | 12 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 5 |
| No pet / don’t remove | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 9 |
| Preference for FRD removal | |||||
| ABC | 10 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 2 |
| Mass culling | 1 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Respondents providing opinion on feeding behaviour | 26 | 11 | 14 | 6 | 19 |
| Don’t feed / remove | 19 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 3 |
| Feed / remove | 0 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 6 |
| Feed / don’t remove | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 9 |
| Don’t feed / Don’t remove | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Perception Towards Free-Roaming Dogs in Goa
External link:
Corfmat, J, Gibson, AD, Mellanby, R, Watson, W, Appupillai, M, Yale , G, Gamble, L & Mazeri, S 2022, ‘Community attitudes and perceptions towards free-roaming dogs in Goa, India’, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, pp. 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2021.2014839
Dog Ownership:
| Overall | Municipalities | Towns | Villages | |
| Dog Ownership | 34% | 29% | 40% | 33% |
| Male % | 72% | |||
| Sterilized % | 36% | 35% | 39% | 34% |
| Always roaming % | 20% | 29% | 16% | 19% |
| Sometimes roaming % | 59% | 56% | 64% | 54% |
| Agree that “my dogs are part of the family” | 98% | |||
| Agree that “I feel affection for my dogs” | 97% | |||
| Agree that “if my dog were to die, it would be easy to replace him/her” | 39% |
FRD Feeding Behaviour and Attitudes:
| Overall | Municipalities | Towns | Villages | |
| Feeding FRD | 37% | 37% | 40% | 34% |
- Gender Differences in Feeding FRD:
- 39% of female respondents feed FRD, while 61% do not.
- 35% of male respondents feed FRD, while 65% do not.
- Demographics of Feeders:
- 41% of feeders are Hindu, 32% are Christian, and 30% are Muslim.
- 41% of dog owners feed FRD, compared to 35% of non-dog owners.
- Feeding Habits:
- Average number of dogs fed per feeder: 3.
- Feeding frequency:
- 40% feed FRD daily.
- 25% every other day.
- 27% once or twice a week.
- 8% feed less than once a week.
- Sterilization Awareness Among Feeders:
- 45% are unaware of the dogs’ sterilization status.
- 31% feed unsterilized FRD, while 24% feed sterilized FRD.
- Attitudes Toward Feeding FRD:
- 24% strongly agree and 57% agree that FRD need care because they lack a home.
- 12% strongly agree and 39% agree that FRD would starve without human feeding.
- 18% strongly agree and 55% agree that they feel affection for FRD.
- 28% strongly agree and 54% agree that feeding FRD makes them feel good.
Attitude Towards FRD:
- 66% agreed that FRD belong in their community.
- 59% agreed that FRD are vulnerable.
- 53% agreed that FRD have a right to live on the streets.
- 57% agreed that FRD are a menace.
- 58% agreed that FRD are a nuisance.
- 60% agreed that FRD are scary.
- 53% agreed that FRD have no right in modern society.
Problems Associated With FRD:
| Overall % | |
| Barking | 56% |
| Chasing | 37% |
| Dog bites / attacks | 36% |
| Environmental contamination (urine / faeces) | 30% |
| Road traffic accidents | 26% |
| Rabies | 18% |
| Dog fights | 16% |
| Attack pets | 14% |
| Steal belongings / household items | 13% |
| Spread infections / diseases to people | 8% |
| Threaten / kill wildlife | 3% |
| Constant littering (too many puppies) | 3% |
| Bad for tourism | 2% |
| Threaten / kill livestock | 1% |
| Unsightly | 1% |
| No problem | 21% |
- Reactions to a Barking Dog:
- Stand still: 43%
- Walk slowly: 15%
- Wave a stick: 13%
- Run away: 13%
- Hit the dog: 11%
- Ignore the dog: 8%
- Shout: 6%
- Scream: 6%
- Try to make friends: 1%
- Responses When Chased by a Dog While on a Two-Wheeler:
- Slow down: 39%
- Speed up: 26%
- Stop: 25%
- Ignore the dog: 8%
- Throw something: 4%
- Scream: 2%
- Shout: 2%
- Raise legs: 2%
- Kick at the dog: 2%
- Dog Bite Incidence:
- 25% of respondents have been bitten by a dog.
Benefits Associated With FRD:
| Overall % | |
| No known benefits | 56% |
| Guarding / security | 42% |
| Keep other dogs away | 5% |
| Companionship | 5% |
| Pest control | 2% |
| Eat garbage / food waste | 0% |
FRD Solutions:
| Overall | Municipalities | Town | Villages | |
| Need to reduce FRD population | 91% | 92% | 88% | 91% |
| Proposed solutions: | ||||
| Place in shelter | 31% | 34% | 24% | 34% |
| Animal birth control | 29% | 26% | 20% | 41% |
| Adoption | 18% | 15% | 20% | 18% |
| Public education | 10% | 8% | 13% | 10% |
| Garbage control | 8% | 6% | 9% | 8% |
| Regulation (pet dogs) | 6% | 5% | 8% | 7% |
| Relocation | 5% | 4% | 4% | 6% |
| Culling | 2% | 2% | 2% | 1% |
| Rabies vaccination | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% |
| Other | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% |
| Solution not necessary | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% |
Research summary | Back to top
Perception Towards Free-Roaming Dogs in Shirsuphal village, Western India
External link:
Tiwari HK, O’Dea M, Robertson ID, Vanak AT (2019) Knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) towards rabies and free-roaming dogs (FRD) in Shirsuphal village in western India: A community based cross-sectional study. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 13(1): e0007120.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007120
- FRD Population:
- FRD in your locality: 100%
- Source of FRD:
- Breeding of local FRD: 78%
- Nearby villages: 13%
- Pets abandoned by villagers: 9%
- FRD Perception:
- FRD are useful for the society: 14%
- For guarding premise: 23%
- Keep away wild animals: 18%
- Keep away thieves: 71%
- FRD is a nuisance to the society: 86%
- FRD is a threat to human health: 91%
- FRD Feeding and Care:
- Source of food for FRD:
- Garbage dumps: 62%
- Meat shop / poultry farm waste: 39%
- Fed by residents: 9%
- Feeding FRD: 39%
- Religious reasons: 84%
- Compassion: 90%
- Better than wasting left-over food: 84%
- Ranking the health of FRD:
- Good: 40%
- Average: 35%
- Poor: 25%
- Would take an injured FRD to a vet: 22%
- Residents who feed / shelter FRD should be responsible for their health / vaccination: 27%
- Health / vaccination is a responsibility of the government: 94%
- Source of food for FRD:
- FRD Population Control:
- Best way to control FRD population:
- Culling: 13%
- Impounding: 34%
- Animal birth control (ABC): 41%
- Garbage management: 10%
- Not sure / others: 2%
- Best way to control FRD population:
Related data from the same study (Rabies KAP)
Related data from the same study (Dog Ownership Practices)
Research summary | Back to top
Perception Towards Free-Roaming Dogs and Cats in India and the US
External Link:
Sensharma, R., Reinhard, C. L., Powell, L., & Watson, B. (2024). Public perceptions of free-roaming dogs and cats in India and the United States. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2024.2374078
Perceptions of Free-Roaming Animals
Possible responses ranged from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5).
| Question | India Median (IQR) | US Median (IQR) |
|---|---|---|
| Are free-roaming dogs community animals (Community animals live as members of the community and are cared for)? | 1.00(1.00–1.00) | 4.00(2.00–5.00) |
| Are free-roaming cats community animals (Community animals live as members of the community and are cared for)? | 1.00(1.00–2.00) | 3.00(2.00–4.00) |
| Do free-roaming dogs have a good life on the streets? | 4.00(4.00–5.00) | 5.00(4.00–5.00) |
| Do free-roaming cats have a good life on the streets? | 4.00(3.00–5.00) | 4.00(3.00–5.00) |
| Should free-roaming dogs be allowed to roam? | 1.00(1.00–3.00) | 5.00(4.00–5.00) |
| Should free-roaming cats be allowed to roam? | 2.00(1.00–2.75) | 4.00(2.00–5.00) |
Concerns Related to Free-Roaming Animals
Data shown as % of respondents who agreed with the concern.
| Concerns | India (%) | US (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Dogs | ||
| Spread disease/public health issue | 32.9 | 66.7 |
| Dirty | 19.0 | 12.8 |
| Bite/scratch/attack/chase | 44.8 | 60.4 |
| Fight amongst themselves – cause noise pollution | 24.8 | 17.4) |
| Animal welfare | 60.5 | 93.4 |
| Impact on wildlife | 10.0 | 37.2 |
| Damage to property | 7.1 | 16.7 |
| No concerns | 12.4 | 0.0 |
| Cats | ||
| Spread disease/public health issue | 24.8 | 61.1 |
| Dirty | 13.8 | 14.6 |
| Bite/scratch/attack/chase | 30.0 | 47.6 |
| Fight amongst themselves – cause noise pollution | 15.7 | 19.9 |
| Animal welfare | 56.2 | 85.8 |
| Impact on wildlife | 9.0 | 55.6 |
| Damage to property | 8.6 | 15.3 |
| No concerns | 16.2 | 1.4 |
Care For Free-Roaming Animal Population
Data shown as % (n) of respondents who selected the group as a party who is responsible for providing the relevant animal services.
| Behaviour / Responsibility | India (%) | US (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Vaccinate | ||
| Local people | 62.4 | 43.1 |
| Caregiver | 60.5 | 45.5 |
| Non-profits/NGOs | 67.1 | 61.5 |
| Veterinarians | 32.4 | 35.1 |
| Government | 83.3 | 67.7 |
| No one | 0.5 | 10.8 |
| Spay/neuter | ||
| Local people | 56.7 | 42.4 |
| Caregiver | 57.6 | 46.9 |
| Non-profits/NGOs | 69.5 | 65.6 |
| Veterinarians | 34.3 | 36.1 |
| Government | 81.4 | 67.7 |
| No one | 0.5 | 9.4 |
| Care for injured animal | ||
| Local people | 77.1 | 47.9 |
| Caregiver | 71.4 | 48.3 |
| Non-profits/NGOs | 72.9 | 66.7 |
| Veterinarians | 48.1 | 48.3 |
| Government | 67.6 | 54.9 |
| No one | 0.0 | 9.7 |
Preferred Management Strategies for Sociable Animals
| Preferred Strategy | Dogs | Cats | ||
| India % | US % | India % | US % | |
| Sociable animals | ||||
| Spay/Neuter, Vaccinate, and Adopt | 55.4 | 89.5 | 46.2 | 72.4 |
| Spay/Neuter, Vaccinate, and Release | 28.7 | 2.8 | 36.0 | 15.4 |
| Spay/Neuter, Vaccinate, and Release into Colonies | 10.4 | 4.2 | 11.8 | 7.3 |
| Euthanasia | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.7 |
| Non-sociable animals | ||||
| Spay/Neuter, Vaccinate, and Release | 43.1 | 20.2 | 47.2 | 34.0 |
| Euthanasia | 0.5 | 14.7 | 0.5 | 23.0 |