Key Findings
Houses, bakeries, and garbage piles were key factors in predicting dog population sizes, with dogs more densely populated in low socioeconomic neighborhoods. Remarkably, only 10 to 18% of houses supported a large portion of the dog population.
While class differences were crucial in understanding attitudes toward free-roaming dogs (FRD), proximity to dogs was also important. Those living closer to dogs tended to be more tolerant, recognized the benefits of FRD, and could differentiate between “dangerous” dogs and the general population.
Upper classes focused more on the ethical aspects of interventions, whereas lower classes preferred quick population removal methods. The upper classes were more confident in the possibility of change and more assertive in suggesting interventions. In contrast, the lower classes, despite often living closer to the dogs, felt less personal responsibility for managing the dog population.
Summary
Stray dogs (FRD) are a common sight in Indian cities, but efforts to control their population through sterilization programs have not been entirely successful. In Bangalore, for example, 46% of stray dogs were not sterilized, an increase in the FRD population from 185,000 dogs in 2013 to over 300,000 in 2019.
To develop more effective population control strategies, it is crucial to consider the environmental factors that support the survival of stray dogs. This includes understanding the availability of food resources in urban areas. Additionally, sociological factors such as public attitudes and feeding practices also play a role in the size of the stray dog population.
In the study “Stray appetites: a socio-ecological analysis of free-ranging dogs living alongside human communities in Bangalore, India”, researchers looked at the relationship between stray dogs and human communities. They aimed to understand how food sources affect the number of stray dogs and how people from different backgrounds feel about these dogs.
Study Methods
Researchers studied stray dogs in six diverse neighborhoods in northern Bangalore, India. They counted dogs using photos and asked people about their opinions. They looked at six places where dogs might find food: garbage piles, small shops, bakeries, butcher shops, restaurants, and houses. They also asked people about their thoughts and actions regarding stray dogs.
Researchers used the capture-recapture technique, a photo-based method, to count stray dogs. They rode bikes through different areas and took photos of the dogs using a phone app. They did this twice in two days to get a good count. They also mapped places where dogs might find food, like garbage piles and shops. This helped them understand how much food was available and how it affected the number of dogs.
In addition, the researchers talked to people from different backgrounds in the city to learn about their opinions and experiences with stray dogs. They used structured interviews to get detailed answers and questionnaires to collect numbers.
The interviews asked about people’s thoughts and feelings about stray dogs, while the questionnaires asked about how often they saw dogs and what problems they had. This helped researchers understand both the statistics and the personal stories of people living with stray dogs.
Study Results
Researchers found more stray dogs in lower-class neighborhoods (57.4), compared to middle-class (39.8) and upper-class areas (17.0). The number of houses was the most important factor in determining FRD population size, while availability of food from bakeries and garbage were also important factors. Surprisingly, just a few houses in each area (10-18%) supported a large portion of the dogs.
The study also found that people who lived near dogs, often those from lower socioeconomic class without the protection of gated communities, were more accepting of them. These people often saw dogs as “companions” or “guards”. They also had a more balanced view and thought that some mean or dangerous dogs should be removed, but viewed the remaining FRD as an integral part of daily life.
On the other hand, people who didn’t see dogs as often, especially if they had heard bad things about them in the news, were more likely to dislike them. On average, upper-class individuals were most likely to think dogs were a problem.
Surprisingly, almost the same number of people from upper-class (58%) and lower-class (55%) neighborhoods wanted stray dogs removed from the city. Despite considering the dogs as a menace, those from the upper class often wanted to find a humane solution, such as Animal Birth Control (ABC), that would let people and dogs live together peacefully. In contrast, those from lower-class neighborhoods were more likely to want dogs removed quickly, even if it meant killing them. This was because they had to deal with the problems of stray dogs every day.
People from the upper-class often felt a responsibility to care for stray dogs and were more optimistic about finding solutions. Those from the lower-class saw dogs as a natural part of their environment and were less confident in the possibility of change. The author suggested this might be because the upper class had fewer problems with government bureaucracy. Everyone thought the government should be responsible for taking action, but the upper class individuals were more likely to believe that citizens had a role in preventing problems by not feeding or abandoning dogs.
The researchers recommended a few ways to manage stray dogs. First, they suggest reducing the amount of food available for dogs by controlling feeding near bakeries and improving garbage collection. Second, they emphasize the importance of community involvement and education to teach people about responsible pet ownership. By discouraging people from feeding stray dogs and increasing sterilization and vaccinations, the number of stray dogs can be reduced, which is something everyone wants.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
India / Street Dogs / Commuinty Perception
Year of Publication:
2021
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