Data and facts about the street dogs of Portugal.
Jump to: CNVR Efforts
Highlights
CNVR Efforts
Jump to: Community-based Population Management in Praia de Faro
Community-based Population Management in Praia de Faro
External Link:
Eckman, Harry and Hiby, Elly, hai.2024.0029, Human-Animal Interactions, doi:10.1079/hai.2024.0029, CABI, The role of human behaviour change in companion animal management: A case study of Praia de Faro, Portugal, (2024). https://doi.org/10.1079/hai.2024.0029
Animal Intervention
- Pre-Intervention (Stage 1):
- Approximately 150 individual dogs and 220 individual cats were living on Praia de Faro.
- Only 1% of dogs and 2% of cats were identified as sterilized.
- Intervention (Stage 2):
- A total of 84 dogs and 204 cats were sterilized and received necessary medical treatment.
- Post-Intervention:
- The dog population remained largely unchanged.
- The cat population declined by approximately 25%.
- This decline is also possibly due to:
- The relocation of one cat colony.
- The demolition of 60 illegal properties, which may have displaced some animals.
Dogs
| November 2013 | August 2014 | Pre-intervention | November 2015 | August 2016 | Post-intervention | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dogs observed | n = 130 | n = 150 | n = 130–150 | n = 137 | n = 148 | n = 137–148 |
| Dogs sterilised (%) | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 47 | 56 | 51.5 |
| Dog male (%) | 74 | 75 | 74.5 | 68 | 73 | 70.5 |
| Dog female (%) | 26 | 25 | 25.5 | 31 | 27 | 29 |
| Dog BCS 3 (%) | 89 | 92 | 90.5 | 95 | 95 | 95 |
| Dog sickness or injury (%) | 5 | 4 | 4.5 | 0.5 | 2 | 1.25 |
| Dog sign of ownership (%) | 87 | 89 | 88 | 69 | 70 | 70 |
Effect of intervention (post compared to pre-intervention)
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|
| Dogs sterilized vs intact | 199 (39–1005) |
| Dog male vs female | 0.8 (0.6–1.2) |
| Dog BCS 3 (ideal) vs BCS 2 (thin) | 2.0 (1.0–3.8) |
| Dog sickness or injury vs healthy | 0.4 (0.1–1.0) |
| Dog sign of ownership vs no sign | 0.3 (0.2–0.5) |
Cats
| November 2013 | August 2014 | Pre-intervention | November 2015 | August 2016 | Post-intervention | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cats observed | n = 220 | n = 170 | n = 170–220 | n = 149 | n = 147 | n = 147–149 |
| Cats sterilised (%) | 2 | 3 | 2.5 | 85 | 74 | 79.5 |
| Cat male (%) | 48 | 49 | 48.5 | 49 | 31 | 40 |
| Cat female (%) | 52 | 51 | 51.5 | 51 | 69 | 60 |
| Cat BCS 2 (%) | 91 | 90 | 90.5 | 94 | 99 | 96.5 |
| Cat sickness or injury (%) | 5 | 13 | 9 | 3 | 1.5 | 2.25 |
| Cat sign of ownership (%) | 16 | 24 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Effect of intervention (post compared to pre-intervention)
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|
| Cats sterilized vs intact | 155 (77–314) |
| Cats male vs female | 0.6 (0.4–0.8) |
| Cat BCS 2 (ideal) vs BCS 1 (thin) | 4.5 (2.0–10.5) |
| Cat sickness/injury vs healthy | 0.2 (0.1–0.6) |
| Cat sign of ownership vs no sign | 0.5 (0.3–0.7) |
Household Survey
| November 2013 | August 2014 | Pre-intervention | November 2015 | August 2016 | Post-intervention | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surveys conducted | n = 150 | n = 150 | n = 300 | n = 150 | n = 150 | n = 300 |
| Pet ownership (%) | 60 | 62 | 61 | 61 | 70 | 65 |
| Dog male (%) | 75 | 75 | 75 | 60 | 63 | 61 |
| Dog female (%) | 25 | 25 | 25 | 40 | 37 | 38 |
| Cat male (%) | 40 | 42 | 41 | 45 | 57 | 51 |
| Cat female (%) | 60 | 58 | 59 | 55 | 63 | 59 |
| Animals allowed to roam (%) | 47 | 48 | 47 | 45 | 44 | 45 |
| Animals sterilised (%) | 19 | 18 | 18.5 | 68 | 68 | 68 |
| Problems associated with roaming animals as expressed by owners (%) | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 42 | 43.5 |
| Problems associated with roaming animals as expressed by non-owners (%) | 65 | 67 | 66 | 65 | 56 | 60.5 |
| Respond positively to an injured animal in need (%) | 63 | 66 | 64.5 | 85 | 88 | 86.5 |
Effect of intervention (post compared to pre-intervention)
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|
| Pet ownership vs non-ownership | 1.2 (0.9–1.7) |
| Owned dog male vs female | 0.5 (0.3–0.9) |
| Owned cat male vs female | 1.5 (0.9–2.4) |
| Animals allowed to roam vs confined | 0.9 (0.6–1.2) |
| Animals sterilised vs intact | 9.4 (6.3–13.8) |
| Problems associated with roaming animals vs no problems (owners) | 0.9 (0.6–1.4) |
| Problems associated with roaming animals vs no problems (non-owners) | 0.8 (0.6–1.4) |
| Respond positively to an injured animal in need vs no response | 3.5 (2.3–5.3) |
Additional Post-Intervention Survey Questions
| Yes | Mp | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Don’t know | |
| Were you aware of the animal welfare project being run on Praia de Faro? | 78% (n = 117) | 22% | 0% |
| Do you think work that was done was good or bad? | 98% (good) | 2% (bad) | 1% |
| Do you think this project helped the animals of Praia de Faro? | 95% | 1% | 4% |
| Do you think this project helped the people of Praia de Faro? | 87% | 4% | 9% |
| Has this work changed how you feel or think about the animals on Praia de Faro (in a positive way)? | 50% | 46% | 4% |
| Would you like to see this kind of work done in other places? | 98% | 0% | 2% |