Free-Roaming Dogs Control Activities in One Italian Province (2000-2013): Is the Implemented Approach Effective?

Abstract

In Italy, standards for the management of free-roaming dogs (FRDs) are defined by regional norms, generating a high variability of approaches around the country. Despite efforts carried out by the competent authorities, FRDs are still a reality impacting upon animal health and welfare and public costs. A similar scenario can be found in many other Mediterranean and Balkan counties. Here we present 14 years of data (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013) retrieved from the admission dog registry of a public shelter (PS) responsible for the collection of stray dogs from one Italian province. The aim of this retrospective study was to describe the local FRD population, identifying its source and to evaluate the effectiveness of the actions implemented by the local authorities. In the investigated period, 7,475 dogs were admitted to the PS. Despite the intense sterilisation plan (mean 381.7 sterilisations per year), the overall number of dogs entering PS did not decrease consistently across the years. Results highlighted a lack of responsibility of owners by failing to sterilise and identify their dogs and allowing intact animals to roam free, therefore producing uncontrolled and unwanted litters. The current dog population management strategy, based on both sheltering and capture-neuter-release programmes, is insufficient to tackle the straying phenomenon. Educational and sterilisation programmes should be an integral part of a successfully implemented FRD control plan. Our results provide further insight on free-roaming dog population dynamics and control systems, and may have important implications for many other local contexts across Europe trying to overcome the straying phenomenon.

Study on the Public Perception of “Community-Owned Dogs” in the Abruzzo Region, Central Italy

“…In the decade 2009–2018, as many as 7626 dogs were entered into the Abruzzo dog registry office as CODs released in the territory, and based on the official database, they are still alive and not adopted. Barnard et al 2015 [ 26 ] report that no reliable estimates of the population of FRD in the province of Pescara (Abruzzo) are available. The results of our study show that a high percentage of respondents (59%) are not aware of the existence of the rules governing the management of CODs.…”

“…On the contrary, CODs can be confused with FRDs and can, therefore, be perceived as a more significant problem by citizens. Although OIE guidelines suggest the need for visible identification (e.g., collar), also to avoid unnecessary recapture [ 4 ], a study carried out in the province of Pescara (Abruzzo) confirms that a rather constant percentage of CODs is recaptured every year and this leads to unnecessary stress for the animals and avoidable expenditure of public resources [ 26 ]. For this reason, each COD should be constantly provided with a visible marking (collar, ear tag) to make it easily recognizable and monitored, even from a distance.…”

The Effectiveness of Dog Population Management: A Systematic Review

“…This method involves collecting free-roaming dogs and carrying out spay or castration surgery in either a fixed-location or mobile clinic. CNR has been carried out in several countries and states, for example in Italy [67], India [68][69][70], Bangladesh [71], Sri Lanka [72], and Brazil [73]. Surgical sterilisation is generally more socially acceptable than culling.…”

Impact Assessment of Free-Roaming Dog Population Management by CNVR in Greater Bangkok

“…Evaluation of DPM interventions are essential for adaptive management of interventions and to inform DPM development in other locations, but are rarely conducted or published with some notable exceptions (Barnard et al, 2015;Belo et al, 2017;Ma et al, 2020;Reece & Chawla, 2006;Totton et al, 2010;Utami et al, 2019;Yoak et al, 2014). An evaluation of this CNVR approach in Greater Bangkok utilized multiple methods to establish change in a number of indicators: Free-roaming dog density and breeding activity, dog rabies cases, and citizens perceptions and care of free-roaming dogs.…”