Can sterilization help to prevent roaming in owned dogs and cats?

Baquero, Oswaldo Santos; Filho, Aluísio Pereira da Silva; Monsalve, Stefany; Gebara, Rosangela Ribeiro; Garcia, Rita de Cássia Maria; Sussai, Stefanie

doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2020.01.021

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some authors have reported that the HR areas of freeroaming male dogs are larger than those of their female counterparts (20,31) and that owned males have higher odds of roaming (41) although the results are controversial (42). Our study indicated the opposite pattern, but without statistical significance.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

Effects of Gender, Sterilization, and Environment on the Spatial Distribution of Free-Roaming Dogs: An Intervention Study in an Urban Setting

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

Effects of Gender, Sterilization, and Environment on the Spatial Distribution of Free-Roaming Dogs: An Intervention Study in an Urban Setting

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To the best of our knowledge, no study investigated FRDD roaming behavior in Africa so far. Often, data were collected using Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking devices (1-4, 6-8, 11-16, 18-20), but other tools, such as capture-recapture (10,21) or interviews (9), were also used to collect data on FRDD roaming behavior. Home range (2,14,17,19), the area a dog commonly uses for normal activities, such as breeding or foraging, and distance from home (12,13,20) were applied to describe and investigate dog roaming behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of Free-Roaming Domestic Dog Management and Roaming Behavior Across Four Countries: Chad, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Uganda

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dogs play a major role in public health because of potential transmission of zoonotic diseases, such as rabies. Dog roaming behavior has been studied worldwide, including countries in Asia, Latin America, and Oceania, while studies on dog roaming behavior are lacking in Africa. Many of those studies investigated potential drivers for roaming, which could be used to refine disease control measures. However, it appears that results are often contradictory between countries, which could be caused by differences in study design or the influence of context-specific factors. Comparative studies on dog roaming behavior are needed to better understand domestic dog roaming behavior and address these discrepancies. The aim of this study was to investigate dog demography, management, and roaming behavior across four countries: Chad, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Uganda. We equipped 773 dogs with georeferenced contact sensors (106 in Chad, 303 in Guatemala, 217 in Indonesia, and 149 in Uganda) and interviewed the owners to collect information about the dog [e.g., sex, age, body condition score (BCS)] and its management (e.g., role of the dog, origin of the dog, owner-mediated transportation, confinement, vaccination, and feeding practices). Dog home range was computed using the biased random bridge method, and the core and extended home range sizes were considered. Using an AIC-based approach to select variables, country-specific linear models were developed to identify potential predictors for roaming. We highlighted similarities and differences in term of demography, dog management, and roaming behavior between countries. The median of the core home range size was 0.30 ha (95% range: 0.17–0.92 ha) in Chad, 0.33 ha (0.17–1.1 ha) in Guatemala, 0.30 ha (0.20–0.61 ha) in Indonesia, and 0.25 ha (0.15–0.72 ha) in Uganda. The median of the extended home range size was 7.7 ha (95% range: 1.1–103 ha) in Chad, 5.7 ha (1.5–27.5 ha) in Guatemala, 5.6 ha (1.6–26.5 ha) in Indonesia, and 5.7 ha (1.3–19.1 ha) in Uganda. Factors having a significant impact on the home range size in some of the countries included being male dog (positively), being younger than one year (negatively), being older than 6 years (negatively), having a low or a high BCS (negatively), being a hunting dog (positively), being a shepherd dog (positively), and time when the dog was not supervised or restricted (positively). However, the same outcome could have an impact in a country and no impact in another. We suggest that dog roaming behavior is complex and is closely related to the owner's socioeconomic context and transportation habits and the local environment. Free-roaming domestic dogs are not completely under human control but, contrary to wildlife, they strongly depend upon humans. This particular dog–human bound has to be better understood to explain their behavior and deal with free-roaming domestic dogs related issues.

show abstract

“…Además del impacto que potencialmente pueden tener las esterilizaciones en materia de gestión poblacional, se ha indagado si tendrían relación con el fenómeno de itinerancia; sobre esto, se formuló un marco conceptual de causalidad para la itinerancia de perros y gatos (18), dentro del marco se valoraron los efectos del sexo, la edad y la esterilización, estableciendo que la itinerancia es mayor en perros machos y que los gatos especialmente machos tienen un rango de hogar mayor en comparación con las hembras (19).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Gestión poblacional canina y felina en el marco One Welfare: Una mirada retrospectiva Bogotá 2004 a 2021

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objetivo: Analizar la gestión poblacional de perros y gatos en Bogotá entre 2004 y 2020 en el marco “One Welfare”. Materiales y Métodos: Estudio descriptivo retrospectivo que incluye análisis de intervenciones públicas y privadas relacionada con esterilizaciones, adopciones y sacrificio de animales de compañía, discriminando por localidad, especie, género y actor (público o privado), la información disponible se organizó empleando Excel®, con análisis descriptivo y resultados expresados en frecuencias, proporciones y tasas. Resultados: Entre 2004 y 2020 se esterilizaron 680.000 gatos y perros por el sector público y 157.000 privado, se adoptaron 21.450 a través del programa de adopción distrital, se sacrificaron 95.000 animales de los cuales el 8% fueron gatos, hasta después del año 2005 los gatos fueron incluidos en las estimaciones poblacionales y después de 2014 se capta información de particulares (esterilización) quienes aportaron el 25% del total de intervenciones. Conclusiones: El crecimiento poblacional de animales demanda atención sanitaria, policiva y ambiental, debiendo mantenerse su gestión ética, aunque complementado con acciones sobre diversas fuentes donde se originan los animales; el enfoque One Welfare es derrotero, reconoce interconexiones entre bienestar animal, humano y ambiente y facilita la colaboración interdisciplinaria para mejorar su bienestar, además complementa y dialoga con One Health. Este estudio aporta pues organiza y compara las estadísticas de gestión disponibles siendo insumo para tomadores de decisión y comunidad interesada.

show abstract

Can sterilization help to prevent roaming in owned dogs and cats?

Cited by 6 publications

References 25 publications

Effects of Gender, Sterilization, and Environment on the Spatial Distribution of Free-Roaming Dogs: An Intervention Study in an Urban Setting

Effects of Gender, Sterilization, and Environment on the Spatial Distribution of Free-Roaming Dogs: An Intervention Study in an Urban Setting

Comparative Study of Free-Roaming Domestic Dog Management and Roaming Behavior Across Four Countries: Chad, Guatemala, Indonesia, and Uganda

Gestión poblacional canina y felina en el marco One Welfare: Una mirada retrospectiva Bogotá 2004 a 2021

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About