OIE questionnaire on dog population control in ... - Middle East - OIE

<strong>OIE</strong> <strong>questionnaire</strong> on dog population control in 81 countries: different national approaches tothe “free-roaming dog” problem and their association with degrees of economic development.P. DallaVilla°, S.Kahn*, L. Stuardo*, L. Iannetti°, A. Di Nardo° & J.A. Serpell §°Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise “G. Caporale”. Teramo*<strong>OIE</strong>, International Trade Department§ University of Pennsylvania. Department of Clinical Studies. PhiladelphiaAbstractA <strong>questionnaire</strong> on dog population control was distributed to all <strong>OIE</strong> countries. Eighty-one correctlycompleted <strong>questionnaire</strong>s were returned and analysed in order to identify the different nationalapproaches to the issue. The intensity of the free-roaming dog problem was found to be negativelycorrelated with the value of the UNs' Human Development Index recognized for each country.Bites/dog attacks and rabies were the main problems associated with free-roaming dogs, and theseproblems were mostly reported by poorer countries. Dog population control programs were stronglyinfluenced by the different countries’ budgets and were more widely used among the moredeveloped countries. On the contrary, in less developed countries, these programs (when theyexisted at all) tended to employ killing/euthanasia methods, some of which are unacceptable notrecommended on animal welfare grounds, including the use of poisoned baits. Internationalguidelines on dog population control should address these national differences, and proposestrategies that emphasize animal welfare and protection of human health, while taking into accounteach country’s budgetary and practical limitations.Keywords<strong>OIE</strong>, animal welfare, free-roaming dog, stray dog, population control, euthanasia, humandevelopment.

1Introduction23456789101112131415161718192021Free-roaming dogs are a worldwide problem, and a number of different programs have beenimplemented by competent authorities and NGOs to manage them. Serious public health concernsarise from this issue: Dog bites and attacks cause significant numbers of hospitalisations each yearall over the world (De Keuster & Butcher 2008, Morgan & Palmer 2007, Georges & Adesiyun2008), while rabies and other zoonoses (such as leishmaniasis) find important reservoirs inuncontrolled stray dog populations (<strong>OIE</strong> 2007, Cortes et al. 2007). For ethical, ecological, andeconomic reasons it is no longer acceptable to control and eradicate disease outbreaks mainly byapplying mass killing of animals (<strong>OIE</strong> 2005). Even if the <strong>OIE</strong> (World Organization for AnimalHealth) recognises the importance of controlling stray dog populations (<strong>OIE</strong> 2007), the extent towhich control programs are present within the member countries depends on local attitudes to freeroamingdogs and the availability of financial resources and veterinary inputs to deal with theproblem. Since there is undoubtedly a correlation between the level of development of a countryand its capacity to manage stray dog populations, international guidelines on dog population controlshould consider these national differences, and suggest diverse strategies that accommodate localand national needs and limitations.The aim of this study was to analyse the results of a <strong>questionnaire</strong>, developed by the <strong>OIE</strong> adhoc group on Dog Population Control, and sent to all <strong>OIE</strong> Members, in order to assess the currentsituation with respect to free-roaming dogs in <strong>OIE</strong> Member countries and territories throughout theworld, and to obtain information on the different approaches used for dog population control.2223Materials and methods24

252627282930313233343536Questionnaire designA <strong>questionnaire</strong> on dog population control, written in Microsoft Word format and translated into thethree <strong>OIE</strong> official languages (English, French, Spanish), was sent to all <strong>OIE</strong> Members via e-mail.Official responses were provided by the State Veterinary Services. The survey comprised 17questions, divided into two sections: “I. General Information on the dog population” (questionsabout the presence of free roaming dogs and associated problems, the distribution of stray dogs inurban and rural and areas and wildlife reserves, and the kinds of problems produced by thispresence), and “II. Stray Dog Control” (questions about the presence of official dog populationcontrol programmes, and the different methods of control employed). As appropriate to the type ofquestion, answers were multiple choice (Yes/No/In Some Areas), and the intensity of the problemwas graded on a numerical scale (most important/common=3, fairly important/uncommon=2;rare=1) or by providing specific numeric information.3738394041424344454647484950Data analysisData were exported into Microsoft Excel (version 2002, Redmond, WA), and analyzed using theSPSS 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) statistical analysis package. Descriptive data analyses wereperformed. Countries were divided into three groups according to the Human Development Indexclasses defined in the United Nations’ Human Development Report 2007/2008 (United Nations2008) (high development: HDI≥ 0.800; medium development: 0.800 > HDI ≥ 0.500; lowdevelopment: HDI

51525354555657585960ResultsEighty-one <strong>OIE</strong> Members returned correctly completed <strong>questionnaire</strong>s (i.e. with appropriateresponses to at least the 80% of the questions posed in the <strong>questionnaire</strong>). Based on the UnitedNations’ Human Development Report 2007/2008, 42 Nations (51.8%) were classified as “HighHuman Development” countries, 29 (35.8%) as “Medium Human Development” countries, 6(7.4%) as “Low Human Development” countries. Five responding countries (6.1%) were notclassified in the Human Development Report.61626364656667686970717273747576Section I (questions 1 to 5)Answers to section I of the <strong>questionnaire</strong> (general information on the dog population) revealedcorrelations between the degree of economic development of a country and the presence of a “freeroamingdog” problem. Results of questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 are summarized in tables I, II and III,including Chi square and Spearman’s correlation coefficients. Question 1 (Are free roaming dogs aproblem?) in particular highlighted differences in answers between the different HDI categories( 2 =18.17; P=0.001), as showed in figure 1. HDI was significantly negatively correlated with thepresence of a free-roaming dog problem (Spearman’s rho = -0.605, P

77787980818283848586878889909192939495world. Dog bites/attacks were the most frequently reported problem caused by free-roaming dogs(question 2, table II, figure 2): 85.3% indicated this as a problem, and 61.8% considered it a veryimportant problem. Infectious disease was also considered a major problem related to stray dogs:70.6% of countries that responded “yes” to question 1 reported rabies as a problem caused by freeroamingdogs, and 64.7% reported infectious diseases other than rabies as a problem. A negativecorrelation was found between the HDI and the intensity of the problem “dog bites/attacks”(Spearman’s rho =-0.357, P

103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128and Spearman’s correlation coefficients. The results from the other questions in this section couldnot be tabulated, so they are explained in the text below. Dog registration and identification(questions 6 and 7) proved to be the most frequently employed method of dog control in highlydeveloped countries: In both cases significant positive correlations were found between the use ofthese methods and the degree of development. Despite the presence of free-roaming dog problemsthroughout the less developed countries, dog population control programs (question 8) were morelikely to be implemented in more developed countries as showed in figure 4 (40.5% of high HDIcountries versus 27.6% of medium HDI countries, and 16.7% of low HDI countries). Answers toquestions 9 and 10 addressed the management of these programs (figures 5 and 6): In the majorityof countries (72%), control programs were managed by municipalities, either alone (24%) orassociated with other institutions or NGOs (49%); budgets were granted mostly by governments(57.9%) and municipalities themselves (26.3%). Annual budgets were provided by only 19countries (23.4%): 9 high HDI countries (mean 799333 euros), 7 medium HDI countries (mean150571 euros), 0 low HDI countries, and 3 in non indexed countries. Question 11 assessed the useof killing/euthanasia as an official method of controlling free-roaming dogs, specifically incountries that employed population control programs (question 11bis). Responses indicated thatkilling/euthanasia is still widely used in many countries, both highly developed and not (figure 7),but a significant negative correlation was found between HDI level and the use of killing/euthanasiaas an official tool of dog population control (Spearman's rho=-0.268, P

129130131132133134135136the HDI level and the use of pharmacological or surgical sterilization as population controlmeasures (questions 13 and 14, table I). Responses indicated that dog shelters (question 16) weremore often used in high HDI countries: Forty-two indexed countries provided the number ofshelters located on their territories, and 28 of these (66%) were in highly developed countries. Ofthe total number of 3867 dog shelters/pounds reported, only 265 (6.8%) were located in medium orlow developed countries. The mean percentage of dogs adopted from shelters each year was 35.9%± 32.4 SD. No significant correlation was found between the HDI levels and adoption rates(Spearman’s rho = 0.292, not significant).137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154DiscussionThe aim of this study was to provide information about the worldwide situation with “free-roamingdog populations”, associated problems, and the different methods employed to deal with them. Atpresent, there are no published studies that provide equivalent data on this issue: Previous researchhas tended to address local situations and to focus mainly on rabies management (Matter & Daniels2000, Kitala et al. 2001, Hsu et al. 2003, Molento et al 2007, Nassar & Mosier 1980, Trent 2005,Donelan 2005). The <strong>OIE</strong> ad hoc group on Dog Population Control obtained correctly completed<strong>questionnaire</strong>s from the public veterinary services of 81 member countries, with differentenvironmental, developmental and economic backgrounds. The Human Development Index (HDI)is a composite index calculated annually in the United Nations’ Human Development Report. Thisindex measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of humandevelopment: A long and healthy life, access to education, and a decent standard of living (UN2007). The Human Development Report divides countries into three different categories accordingto their HDI index: High development countries (HDI ≥ 0.800), medium development countries(0.800>HDI≥0.500), low development countries (HDI < 0.500). The latter two groupsapproximately correspond to those countries usually identified as “under-developed” or “ThirdWorld” countries. The responses to the <strong>questionnaire</strong> confirmed that free-roaming dogs are a global

155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179problem involving countries of all degrees of development. However, poor countries are moreaffected by the problem: 100% of medium and low HDI countries consider free-roaming dogs aproblem; compared with 69% of highly developed countries. This tendency is confirmed by thesignificant negative correlation found between HDI level and the intensity of the problem (table I).Clearly, improvements in human development parameters would be likely to have a positive impacton the free-roaming dog problem, independent of other factors, although the association betweenhuman development and problems associated with stray dog is presumably related to a number offactors, including lack of education, economic deprivation, cultural attitudes to animals and theirwelfare, environmental pollution, and so on. The availability and accessibility of food for stray dogsis also recognized as a contributory factor (Kato et al. 2003, Fielding & Plumridge 2005), and isprobably related to levels of public hygiene (e.g. presence of garbage, human waste, etc.) that areoften inadequate in less developed countries: Without these food sources, stray dogs are deprived ofnutrition, resulting in a reduced life span and reproductive performance (Kato et al. 2003).Particularly in developing countries (Childs et al. 1998), but also in developed ones (Di Nardo et al.2007), unattended free-ranging owned dogs are common, amplifying the problem associated withownerless dogs.The control of free-roaming dogs has always been a key issue in rabies management,although the results of this <strong>questionnaire</strong> indicate that dog bites/attacks are the problem mostfrequently associated with stray dogs, independent of the presence or absence of infectious diseases.Bites and attacks by dogs should therefore be considered as a separate, worldwide health problem,which gives risk to a considerable number of medical treatments and hospitalisations annually (DeKeuster & Butcher 2008). Although we found a significant positive correlation between thepercentage of people who were reported as having been bitten/attacked annually and HDI level, thisresult may have been due to reduced access to healthcare services in under-developed countries, andhence a much lower reported incidence of dog bites (Dulanya et al. 2007).

180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204Results from section II confirmed that dog population control strategies are less likely to beemployed in less developed countries, and control measures that are both less expensive and lesshumane are more often used. Allocated budgets for free-roaming dog management tend to be muchhigher in developed countries, and were non-existent in those with low HDI levels (figure 6). It isobvious that less developed countries encounter more difficulties in affording dog populationcontrol programs, so the replies to question 11 were particularly interesting in order to evaluate thedistribution of less expensive (and less humane) methods of dog control: i.e. killing/euthanasia. Ithas been reported that control programs based on killing/euthanasia, to be successful, require theelimination of 50-80% of the dog population per annum; a goal that is probably beyond the reach ofmost underdeveloped countries for both logistical and financial reasons (Trent 2005). Nevertheless,the significant negative correlation between HDI and the official use of these methods for dogpopulation control is consistent with the widespread use of these methods in poor countries. This isalso confirmed by the significantly less frequent use of more humane population control measures(other than killing/euthanasia) in underdeveloped countries in comparison to developed ones (figure9). Serious Aanimal welfare concerns arise from this issue, particularly in light of the wideemployment of poisoned baits and shooting (figure 8).Dog shelters are important tools in the control of free-roaming dog populations, particularlywhere the use of killing/euthanasia is limited (Passantino et al. 2006). However, these also representan expense that many countries are unable to afford. The <strong>questionnaire</strong> results suggest that the useof dog shelters is almost exclusively confined to high HDI countries. The deployment of less costlybut nonetheless humane alternatives should be considered where dog shelters are too costly forpractical use and/or in addition to limited use of dog shelters. Catch/neuter/release systems havebeen used in some developing countries (Trent 2005, Molento et al 2007, Molento 2004, Reece etal. 2008), and have been shown to provide a successful mean of population control (Trent 2005).Further studies are needed, however, to evaluate the acceptability of such systems in terms of

205206animal welfare and the possible nuisance that populations of neutered roaming dogs might pose topeople.207208209Conclusion210211212213214215216217218The findings from the <strong>OIE</strong> <strong>questionnaire</strong> demonstrate that there are important differences in theperception of free-roaming dogs amongst <strong>OIE</strong> members, and in their approaches to dog populationcontrol. In many of the more developed countries stray dogs are nowadays no longer considered tobe a problem (presumably because there are now relatively few uncontrolled free-roaming dogs).Elsewhere, unfortunately, free-roaming dogs are still considered a significant problem, andinefficient and inhumane control methods are widely employed to deal with it. Low cost, humanealternatives to these methods should be identified and field tested so that they can be deployed inpoorer countries where free-roaming dogs and associated human health risks are more prevalent.

References Childs J, Robinson L, Sadek R, Madden A, Miranda M & Miranda M (1998). Densityestimates of rural dog populations and an assessment of marking methods during a rabiesvaccination campaign in the Philippines. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 33: 207-218. Cortes S, Alfonso MO, Alves-Pires C & Campino L 2007 Stray dogs and leishmaniasis inurban areas, Portugal. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13 (9): 1431-1432. De Keuster T & Butcher R 2008 Preventing dog bites: Risk factors in different culturalsettings. The Veterinary Journal. In press doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.11.006. Di Nardo A., Candeloro L., Budke C.M. e Slater M.R. (2007) “Modeling the effect ofsterilization rate on owned dog population size in central Italy” Preventive VeterinaryMedicine 82: 308-313 Donelan T 2005 To kill or control – Humane Animal Management in a Remote IndigenousAustralian Community. Proceedings of the 30 th World Small Animal Veterinary Associationhttp://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2005&PID=11056&Category=1542&O=Generic accessed on 28/05/2008 Dulanya J, Campbell M & Leigh MC 2007 Trying to make a difference: the Malawiexperience of a Tuberculosis (TB) nurse specialist. Contemporary nurse : a journal for theAustralian nursing profession 24 (1): 93-102. Fielding WJ & Plumridge SJ 2005 Characteristics of owned dogs on the island of NewProvidence, The Bahamas. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 8 (4): 245-260. Georges K & Adesiyun A 2008 An investigation into the prevalence of dog bites to primaryschool children in Trinidad. BMC Public Health 5 (8): 85. Hsu Y, Severinghaus LL & Serpell JA 2003 Dog keeping in Taiwan: Its contribution to theproblem of free-roaming dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 6 (1): 1-24. Kato M, Yamamoto H, Inukai Y & Kira S 2003 Survey of the Stray dog population and thehealth education program on the prevention of dog bites and dog-acquired infections: acomparative study in Nepal and Okayama Prefecture, Japan. Acta Medica Okayama 57 (5):261-266. Kitala P, McDermott J, Kyule M, Gathuma J, Perry B & Wandeler A 2001 Dog ecology anddemography information to support the planning of rabies control in Machakos District,Kenya. Acta Tropica 78(3): 217-230. Matter HC & Daniels TJ 2000 Dog ecology and population biology. In Macpherson CLN,Meslin X & Wandeler AI (Eds.) Dog zoonosis and public health pp 17-60. CABI:Wellingborough, UK. Molento CFM 2004 Vasectomising stray dogs. The Veterinary Record 155 (20): 648. Molento CFM, Lago E & Bond GB 2007 Controle populacional de caes e gatos em dez vilasrurais do Paranà: resultados em medio prazo (Populational control of dogs and cats in tenRural Villages in the State of Paranà, Brazil: mid-term results). Archives of VeterinaryScience, 12 (3): 43-50. Morgan M & Palmer J 2007 Dog bites. British Medical Journal 334: 413-417. Nassar R & Mosier JE 1980 Canine population dynamics: a study of the Manhattan, Kansas,canine population. American Journal of Veterinary Research 41 (11): 1798-1803. <strong>OIE</strong> 2005. Conclusion and recommendations. The prevention, control and eradication ofRabies in Europe. First International Conference “Rabies in Europe”. Kiev (Ukraine), 15-18June 2005. http://www.oie.int/downld/Rabies_Conclusions_Recom_kiev.pdf accessed on28/05/2008.

<strong>OIE</strong> 2007. Resolution. Towards the elimination of rabies in Eurasia. Conference “Towardsthe elimination of rabies in Eurasia”. Paris (France), 27-30 May 2007.http://www.oie.int/eng/rabies2007/files/A_Rabies_Final_Resolution.pdf accessed on28/05/2008. Passantino A, Fenga C, Morciano C, Morelli C, Russo M, Di Pietro C & Passantino M 2006Euthanasia of companion animals: a legal and ethical analysis. Annali dell’Istituto Superioredi Sanità 42: 491-495. Reece JF, Chawla SK, Hilby EF & Hilby LR 2008 Fecundity and longevity of roaming dogsin Jaipur, India. BMC Veterinary Research 4: 8. Trent NW 2005. Humane Animal Control Initiatives in the Developing World. Proceedingsof the 30 th World Small Animal Veterinary Associationhttp://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2005&Category=1542&O=Generic accessed on 28/05/2008 United Nations 2008. United Nations Development Programme 2008. Human DevelopmentReport 2007/2008. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_20072008_en_complete.pdf accessedon 28/05/2008

TABLESTable I: section I (multiple choice questions)Question1 Are free roaming dogs aproblem ?4 Are dog attacks/bites on humansreportable?Y: Yes N: NoISA: In Some Areas DK: Don’t KnowSuitableHDI>0,800 0,500>HDI>0,800 HDI

Table II: section I (question 2).Question2. If YES (to question1: Are free-roamingdogs a problem ?),please indicate themain problemSubquestionHDI>0.800Dog bites C =16NC =3R =4N =6Rabies C=10NC=2R=4N=13OtherdiseasesNuisancee.g. dogfaecesC=5NC=4R=8N=12C=9NC=10R=4N=6Other C=4NC=1R=5N=19HDI class0.500>HDI>0.800C=18NC=6R=1N=3C=21NC=2R=2N=3C=7NC=4R=8N=9C=9NC=6R=5N=8C=3NC=0R=4N=21HDI0.800 HDI

Table IV: section II (multiple choice questions)Question6 Is dog registration required bylaw?7 Is dog identification required bylaw?8 Are dog population controlprograms used?11 Is it official policy tokill/euthanize free-roaming dogs?11bis Is it official policy tokill/euthanize free-roaming dogs?(only countries with dog populationcontrol programs)13 Are population control measures 70 26other than killing/euthanasia used?(68.4%)14 Is pharmacological contraception 73 11used?(26.8%)15 Is surgical sterilization used? 70 27(72.9%)Y: Yes N: NoISA: In Some Areas DK: Don’t KnowSuitableHDI>0.800 0.500>HDI>0.800 HDI

Table V: section II (question 12)QuestionSubquestionHDI>0,800HDI classHDI

FIGURESFigure 1: question 1 (Are free roaming dogs a problem?)Figure 2: question 2 (if YES to question 1, please indicate the main problem)

Figure 3: question 3 (Are free roaming dogs a problem in the following areas?)Figure 4: question 5 (How many people are yearly attacked/bitten?)

Figure 5: question 9 (Who manages dog population control programs?)Figure 6: question 10 (What is the annual budget for dog population programs?)

Figure 7: question 11 (Is it official policy to kill/euthanize free-roaming dogs?), only countrieswith population control programs

Figure 8: question 12 (If YES to question 11, what methods for killing/euthanasia?)Figure 9: question 13 (Are dog population control measures other than killing/euthanasiaused?)