Three Things to Know
The Community Dog Program (CDP) has been implemented in multiple municipalities in Paraná, Brazil. Researchers documented its expansion to five additional municipalities, identifying key factors, challenges, and best practices for successful implementation.
The study revealed that the initial criteria for selecting community dogs often did not align with real-world conditions. In particular, many of the dogs exhibited a tendency to chase moving objects.
The program identified welfare concerns, particularly regarding food and water. The inconsistent implementation of veterinary procedures could have compromised the dogs’ health.
The Full Picture
In many Brazilian neighborhoods, stray dogs have become integral members of the community, often referred to as “community dogs.” Residents feed, shelter, and even name these dogs, forming strong bonds with them. These dogs often act as natural deterrents, keeping other strays away and potentially reducing disease transmission.
Several municipalities in the State of Paraná, such as Araucária, Campo Largo, and Curitiba, have formalized this concept by registering community dogs as part of their dog population management strategies. Known as the Community Dog Program (CDP), this approach is seen as a more humane alternative to culling.
The study, titled “Community Dog Program in Five Municipalities of Paraná, Brazil,” aims to provide insights into the implementation of CDPs. It focuses on identifying key factors, challenges, and best practices for establishing a successful CDP.
Planned Methodology for Community Dog Program
Five municipalities in Paraná — Araucária, Lapa, Pinhais, Piraquara, and Ponta Grossa — were chosen based on their interest in implementing the Community Dog Program (CDP). Each municipality selected 20 stray dogs to participate, totaling 100 dogs.
The CDP implementation relied on a collaborative approach involving the public sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and community dog caretakers. The municipal health and environment secretariats played a crucial role in zoonosis monitoring and public health. NGOs and independent protectors contributed their expertise in rescue and sterilization. Caretakers, who had formed strong bonds with the dogs, were legally recognized as responsible for their well-being in Paraná.
The CDP implementation process was divided into five stages:
- Initial Planning: This involved coordinating with municipalities, scheduling visits, and surveying potential dogs for inclusion.
- Screening: To select 100 dogs, specific criteria were established, which are detailed in the Lessons section. Interviews and observations were conducted to evaluate each dog’s suitability. Participants also received informational booklets about stray dog management, responsible pet ownership, and animal welfare.
- Registration: Caretakers and dogs were registered, with documentation and guidelines provided to caretakers. Informed consent was obtained, ensuring understanding of the CDP, its scientific approach, and caretaker responsibilities.
- Veterinary Procedures: Municipalities financed veterinary care, including microchipping, vaccinations, sterilizations, and parasite control.
- Final Meeting: Each municipality convened a meeting to review the program’s progress, address challenges, and propose solutions.
Lessons from Implementation
1. Initial Planning
During the initial planning phase, potential dogs for screening were identified through various sources, including existing databases from the government sterilization program, reports of abandonment, community knowledge, and collaboration with NGOs. Caretakers also played a vital role in identifying additional locations.
2. Screening
During the screening process, initial criteria were frequently adapted to reflect actual field conditions.
Dog Demographics and Caretakers
Of the 100 dogs selected, 56% were male, 44% female, 72% adults, and 38% older than 8 years. The number of dogs per location varied, with two dogs per site being most common. Puppies were excluded due to their limited chances of survival on the streets.
Smaller and medium-sized dogs were generally more accepted by people, while larger dogs were less likely to be included due to concerns about dog bites. The majority of dogs were mixed-breed, with 31% small, 61% medium, and 8% large. This aligns with previous studies and reflects the preference for smaller dogs and purebreds in adoption, as well as the perception of larger dogs as potential guard dogs.
Dogs in CDP were required to have a positive relationship with at least one community member for at least a year. This was assessed through their behavior in the presence of their caretakers. Most dogs selected (89%) exhibited positive behavior, allowing physical contact. While 11% were hesitant toward strangers, this behavior was likely influenced by the presence of researchers.
Street Dwelling
The initial criteria set out that only dogs living exclusively on the streets were eligible for the program. Most of the selected dogs (91%) were confirmed to live entirely outdoors by the local community. However, in 9% of cases, caretakers occasionally brought the dogs inside their homes, primarily at night or during specific times. Caretakers cited concerns about fines, bad weather, or complaints from passersby regarding the dogs’ behavior, such as chasing vehicles.
While bringing dogs indoors may encourage caretakers to adopt them, it can also lead to confusion with free-roaming owned dogs. This can complicate efforts to promote responsible pet ownership. Additionally, removing community dogs from their familiar environment may reduce their effectiveness as sanitary and reproductive barriers and potentially impact their behavior, increasing the risk of biting.
Fixed Shelter
Initially, only dogs with fixed shelters were eligible for CDP.
Yet, it was found that only 65% of the study’s dogs had access to a fixed shelter, with Ponta Grossa demonstrating the highest provision (85%). Lapa and Piraquara had lower rates (55% and 25%, respectively). These differences likely reflect existing population management efforts and support from NGOs. Residential areas were generally more favorable for shelter availability.
Among the 35% of dogs without fixed shelters, some were brought indoors during inclement weather. The primary reasons for the lack of shelters included the belief that one already existed, difficulty finding a suitable location (e.g. outside residential areas), fear of fines, neighbor complaints, and theft. These findings emphasize the need for community guidance on shelter placement and installation support.
Biting and Chasing Behaviours
Dogs with a history of biting or chasing behaviors were to be excluded from the CDP to ensure safety.
None of the studied dogs had a history of biting. This aligns with research suggesting that biting risks are not exclusive to stray dogs but are also present in domiciled and semi-domiciled dogs. This is consistent with the CDP’s objectives, as dogs posing risks to people or animals require alternative control strategies like capture and behavioral modification.
However, 45% of the dogs exhibited chasing behavior, a common occurrence in territorial animals. While natural, this behavior can lead to abuse from passersby. Statistical analysis revealed that adult dogs were significantly more likely than elderly dogs to chase, likely due to physiological changes associated with aging. Further analysis identified the length of stay (1-5 years) and location as significant factors in chasing behavior. Dogs in residential areas were more likely to chase compared to those in commercial areas, possibly due to differences in human and vehicle traffic.
3. Registration of Dogs and Caretakers
A total of 100 dogs and 51 caregivers were registered for the program. While some caregivers initially hesitated to provide personal data, their understanding of the program’s importance and the challenges faced by street dogs led to increased empathy and acceptance of community dogs.
Several welfare concerns were identified during the program, including dirty drinking water, food served directly on the ground, leftover food and debris, and fixed shelters in high-traffic areas. These issues, particularly uneaten food, could attract other animals, such as rodents. To address these challenges, specific guidelines were provided based on individual situations and contexts.
4. Veterinary Procedures
The study revealed that 46% of the community dogs were already sterilized before the CDP began. While 35% were successfully sterilized during the program, 19% remained unsterilized due to factors including age, transportation issues, missed appointments, and prioritization of other dogs. Despite the project’s short duration, it’s clear that sterilization plans require close oversight and additional measures to ensure success. Furthermore, the overall completion rates of essential veterinary procedures, like microchip registration and rabies vaccination, was low, indicating a need for improvements in the CDP to effectively meet its goals.
5. Final Meeting
The final meetings played a crucial role in the project, particularly in fostering discussions about shared responsibility, defining the roles of each program component, and identifying potential solutions to the challenges encountered in the field. The outcomes of these meetings were directly relevant to the overall success of the Community Dog Program.
Conclusion
The implementation of the Community Dog Program in the 5 municipalities was successful overall, with the staged approach facilitating organization. However, challenges arose in areas like food and water supply, limited resources, and dogs chasing moving objects. These challenges can be addressed through better planning and knowledge. The method can be used to develop a protocol for further studies on community dogs and their importance in dog population management.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
Dog Population Management > Case Studies > Community Dog Program
Year of Publication:
2022
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