Analysis of the Public Perception of Stray Animals and How to Help Them
Stray animals are often seen as a trademark of urban and rural life in India. They are defined as un-owned domestic animals, pets, cats, and dogs that populate the streets of a city. To achieve successful control measures of the stray animal population and the problem they create, authorities of different magnitudes must design, understand and enact the current societal perception, causal relationships, and animal rights laws. All these steps will go a long way in providing medical care in the form of treatment and vaccination, feeding, shelter for the animals, and ways to control their reproduction. The authors seek to draw parallels to international programs initiated for the explicit reason of controlling the stray animal population. By doing so, we stand to single out programs that have the highest chance of success. Here, we explore the existing methods used to keep in check the population of stray animals and the accompanying public perception of what is the right thing to do to ensure the safety of the people and the animals. We report on the solutions recommended by the World Health Organization and solutions we found in our literature analysis on Google Scholar. Finally, we introduce our solution to address this concern and highlight some similarities between different regions in their approach to solving a common problem.
Introduction
Today, stray animals in India are estimated to be upwards of 6.2 crores by independent studies. Regardless of one’s interest to take this data at its face value or not, the problem of stray animals causing problems and discomfort in public areas and the safety of the residents of the area has been an uphill battle for Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, and India as a whole.
Surgical neutering and surgical contraception techniques are the most commonly used methods to control stray animal populations. While non-surgical contraception methods involve immuno-contra receptors agents and hormone-based contraceptives. [1]
One must take into account the roles played by Public and Environmental agencies in developing and improving services to ensure hygiene and medical services for stray animals and effective campaigns to ensure proper vaccination and efforts are taken against possible disease transmission from these animals, in both public and rural settings.
Bhopal has invested Rs. 20 crores over the past decade to curb the increasing population of stray animals. The capital of Madhya Pradesh had initiated the Animal Birth Control (ABC) program now sees a steeper rate of canine births, which statistically indicates sterilization of around 30 canines to 100 or so odd births in the city. Over the last decade, the Bhopal Municipal Corporation talks about how the relocation of dogs combined with abandonment by caregivers is the major causal incident of territorial fights, which often leads to dog bite cases. In the legal world, stray animals or free-roaming dogs (FRD; which are the focus of this project) do not technically have a legal identity and all and every action which involves such animals is considered animal harm. This thought, allow for quick compensation for the human involved, but it seldom is beneficial for the animal, as no differentiating factors have been agreed upon. [2]
There is a correlation between urban factors and environmental ones that contribute to the growth of the stray animal population. [3]
For instance, without proper care and shelter, animals can easily develop diseases such as rabies which is a deadly disease that can be easily infected and can be fatal to human beings. Adoption is open to everyone capable of taking care of a pet. It is also a chance for the homeless pet to find a permanent home and meet its rightful owner. [4]
Unlike other invasive species, we borrow the argument that dogs are heavily dependent on humans (Morters et al., 2014), and their presence in natural ecosystems is often associated with human presence (e.g., Vanak and Gompper, 2010; Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving, 2012; Paschoal et al., 2016). Dogs often have difficulties maintaining populations without human support (Pal, 2001; Boitani et al., 2017), and for this reason, their populations rarely become truly feral (Reponen et al., 2014. On a similar tangent, we can safely say that human societies are unwittingly supporting a stray animal population.
Unlike other invasive species, the problem of dogs is not only how to remove animals from natural areas, but how to change the human behaviors that cause the problem.
The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) emphasizes the need to instill a sense of responsibility among dog owners (OIE, 2017). But responsibility has to be borne by a certain party. In this case, finding the right party to have the resources and knowledge to do so effectively can only be understood if we consider specific scenarios that are frankly beyond the time constraint. [5]
The problem of the rising number of stray animals on roads is also animal specific. There is a rise in the number of stray canines because of uncontrolled population growth. Our prospective, cross-sectional study of victims of RTA due to stray animals lacks data on animal casualties and fatalities. We also lack adequate data on RTA due to wild animals such as elephants and deer, which are rare in our setup. This rarity asks the public perception and labels canines to be the biggest contributors to roadside accidents. A misconception that is part fact and part assumption which is realized through a more encompassing approach to data collection, which is not an easy task. [16]
Under the microscope — Bangalore, India
With a focus on further investigating the potential for this line of interventions in Bangalore, the focus has been on developing the ability to predict the population of free-roaming dogs based on different food sources. Identification of garbage piles, households, and commercial establishments stands to help us understand the role played by such locations in supporting the stray dog population. Given the tight-interconnectedness between humans and free-ranging dogs, Matter and Daniels (2000) state that the most important determinant of dog population size is the attitude of the relevant communities.
Similar to this, any interventions that might be focused on food sources would include alterations at the community level. This necessitates a deeper comprehension of local customs and attitudes about dogs that are allowed to roam free.
According to various authors (Butler and Bingham 2000; Gompper 2014), who also discovered that dog population density rises as the number of people grows, dwellings are of the utmost importance. It also supports research that demonstrates that referral homes that directly feed the animals are the primary supporters of free-ranging canines in urban environments (Morters et al. 2014).
Bhalla et al. found that the estimated percentage of households that feed these dogs is relatively small at 10% in upper-, 16% middle- and 18% in lower-class units, compared to 42 and 73% in two Indonesian villages (Morters et al. 2014). It is thus evident that a small proportion of houses can sustain large free-ranging dog populations. Research by Butler and Bingham (2000) and Reese (2005) that claimed that dog populations in India were significantly influenced by human waste, food, and feces is at odds with the conclusion that rubbish sources, while substantial, are lesser predictors of populations. We propose that household-maintained dogs (semi-owned free-ranging dogs) eat rubbish as a secondary food source, whereas garbage is the principal food source for the population that is not associated with any one household. Contrary to popular belief, we found that big waste piles were not extremely common throughout the data collection. There were no rubbish piles in the congested streets of many neighborhoods, especially the packed ones located in lower socioeconomic areas, and the door-to-door garbage collection system appeared to be frequent and well-used.
Garbage piles were only seen on large roads, main shopping streets, and in vacant lots present in middle- and upper-class neighborhoods.
In terms of the differences in attitudes towards free-ranging dogs between socio-economic groups, we found that while class differences remain a prominent variable in understanding views, it appears that closeness to dogs was also an important factor.
Bangalore took steps to reduce the carrying capacity of the environment by regulating feeding around bakeries and improving waste management in public spaces. Creating awareness about the impact that household feeding has on the dog population could additionally help to control the population. [6]
Under the microscope — Holland
It is always wise to be aware of how other countries have dealt with the issue of a rising stray animal population. In this instance, we examine and comprehend how the Netherlands managed to eradicate stray animals from the 1800s to the present.
Many Dutch municipalities-imposed dog taxes in the 19th century to limit the number of dogs, but this backfired. Strays were found to be more prevalent in “dog tax” towns than in non-taxed ones. This can be explained by the fact that many people left their dogs behind because they were unable or unwilling to pay. Hence, poverty had a significant impact on the rise in stray dog populations. They served as the prestige symbols for their masters’ wealth and prosperity. Mongrels were owned and employed as working and security dogs by the lower classes.
Following the elite’s viewpoint, the well-being of the dog gradually began to be seen as a proxy for that of its owner. The way people view animal welfare and its significance changed as a result of this. Dogs who were well-cared-for and shown as symbols of affluence started to receive increasingly greater treatment. The foundation of groups and societies, as well as the law, demonstrated this. In the Dutch metropolis of The Hague, the first agency for animal protection was founded in 1864, and the first shelter was established in 1877. Animal mistreatment was also punished in 1886.
Following that, society began to support chain dogs because they were frequently mistreated. Once more, inspection and education were crucial to changing animal keepers’ attitudes. Animal protection legislation was also introduced in 1962. The Animal health and welfare law was enacted at the turn of the 20th century. The Netherlands’ most significant law about animal welfare is this one. It indicates that it is illegal for an owner to mistreat an animal or fail to provide for its needs. A maximum prison sentence of three years in prison and a fine of €16,750 can both be imposed for violations, which are regarded as criminal offenses.
One can see a change in how people and dogs interact in the Netherlands. Dogs were viewed as either slaves or employees in the year 1800. The way that people perceive their dogs has changed in the twenty-first century; many owners even consider their canines to be their children. This, too, undoubtedly has an impact on the number of stray dogs. Individuals do not naturally become parents or friends, and it is even less of an issue when it comes to underperforming employees. Welfare development unquestionably has a significant impact on this. The family takes precedence over (pet) animals when conditions are poor. Interest in protecting animals increased along with the rise in per capita GDP.
Dutch culture plays a role in the reduction of stray animals in The Netherlands. The country is one of few to have a political party in its parliament, whose core purpose is to improve animal welfare.
Dutch society is distinguished by its emphasis on individual liberty over universal principles. This causes those who hold a subjective worldview to be aware of the “peculiarities” and cultures of others and to be curious about them. No one should be surprised by this. The Netherlands has always been a little nation that relied on its interactions with other cultures to survive.
A survival strategy was observation and sympathy for others is a sound way to live. People’s perceptions of animals and their welfare are influenced by their capacity for empathy. We are personally affected by the suffering of animals, and this empathy drives us to seek remedies.
One very important measure that could be taken to achieve a decline in, or the disappearance of stray dogs, is of course sterilization. [7]
Key Focus Area in the stray animal conversation
Public Awareness
Public awareness goes a long in finding the required support for government initiatives and volunteers in helping make plans and policies effective daily. Communities must be educated about the problem, that stray animals pose, and include them to develop better solutions to the problem. [1]
Organizations
NGOs, Public Groups, and Government organizations tend to think differently about the solution and the problem when compared to the thought process of the persons involved with the problem daily. [8]
Perceived Welfare
One species’ perceived welfare varies in different social and environmental settings. Stray/street and feral/wild dogs received low welfare ratings from respondents. Likely, the welfare of dogs who have recently been moved from companion homes into stray or street situations is reduced. Free-roaming dogs are frequently linked to abandonment, threats to one’s health and safety, and dangers to wildlife or cattle (Dalla Villa et al 2010; Villatoro et al 2019). Nonetheless, residents in places where these dogs have formed colonies frequently express concern about the welfare of the animals and support non-lethal measures (Slater et al 2008; Farnworth et al 2014). [9]
Carry Capacity
Every region has a carrying capacity, or the maximum population of a specific specie that can exist given the defined food, water, habitat, and other resources available. This is a defining factor in the policies and actions undertaken by the government and also for community groups to approach the problem scientifically, for when done incorrectly can simply transfer the overpopulation of stray animals from one area to another. [3]
Health Programs
Are designed to ensure safety amongst the human population against zoonotic diseases. While, in the case of the stray animal, methods, and programs are used to pause reproduction without harming the animal. Both surgical neutering and non-surgical contraception techniques are tested and true methods to handle the stray animal population, [1] which today seems to not be up to mark. For instance, Trap-neuter-return (TNR) involves a diverse set of safety considerations for animals and humans. They are supported by municipal agencies and charitable organizations. Making aesthetically acceptable programs that weigh in on the community’s perspective is vital.
Ethics
Ethics play a huge role in swaying public opinion and government policies when the question of animal welfare is discussed. Different methods of animal population control differ in their result and the method used to deploy them, which raises eyebrows and diminishes returns to the method, mainly in its efficacy over a longer period. Often, this is the reason for the uncontrollable population increase.
Euthanasia
The advantages of euthanasia as a method of control for stray animal populations include, it induces painless death without cruelness, not like poisoning, it is accepted ethically worldwide, the chemical agents are of low cost, and minimal materials are required. [1] Researchers who work with animals commonly face the dilemma of euthanizing some animals. Euthanasia of animals, especially where it concerns pest wildlife or feral species, is often a sensitive and emotive topic and can raise vigorous public debate. However, little is known about the experiences of those who euthanize animals. This study interviewed several people about their experiences of animal euthanasia to attain a better understanding of any impacts on the person involved in the euthanasia.
Participants stated that there was typically no social assistance for emotional stress brought on by euthanasia. The decision-making procedures, availability of training and support, work practices, and arguments for euthanasia were organizational elements that had an impact on participation. The report adds that it is crucial to avoid pathologizing the experiences of researchers and to acknowledge that how a euthanasia choice is made and the training it is based on can significantly affect a person’s views and comfort levels when doing so. [10]
Alternatives to surrendering their pets
Surrendering one’s pet is the action of a pet owner to donate or surrender their animal for any acceptable reason by the regulations put in place. This act becomes all the easier when owners feel that they are equipped to deal with the animal. By understanding how their pets grow and behave throughout the year, pet owners can understand that introducing a better daily routine, and visits to the veterinarian can make their life all the better, and on the off-chance help reduce the burden of animal shelters.
The top three reasons offered by guardians for the surrender of dogs and cats were moving, allergies, and behavior problems, as reported by Irvine et. al. [11]
Animal Shelters
The issue with stray cats cannot be resolved by expanding shelter capacity alone. Dogs are well-controlled by owners and are subject to strict regulations, so dog shelters can effectively handle surplus animals. Cats are harder to contain, frequently permitted to roam freely, and are subject to fewer regulations. As a result, cat shelters are unable to handle the issue of too many cats on their own. It is suggested that a conversation on better policy formulation for NGOs in charge of shelters may start with an economic study. However, a debate on how to enhance policymaking for NGOs in charge of shelters may benefit from the use of economic research. [12]
Lack of basic knowledge about animals
Knowledge is the first and foremost tool in becoming a competent pet owner. Understanding the importance of knowing what your dogs or your cats do is paramount, and the lack of this basic knowledge, stresses the system as it is. This idea is aptly summed up by this paragraph.
“The lack of knowledge also produces unrealistic expectations about what animals are like and what they need. In interviews, I found that most dog guardians mistakenly thought that a female dog could not be spayed while in heat and that neutering a male dog before adulthood would stunt his growth. In research sponsored by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, a majority of people (61 percent) surrendering animals thought, incorrectly, that dogs and cats should mate at least once before being sterilized (or they did not know whether this was true). Only about 20 percent of those surrendering cats were aware that females are seasonally polyoestrous, meaning that they can go into heat and bear several litters over a season. Among those surrendering dogs, 43 percent did not know how often female dogs experience oestrus (the answer is twice a year). About half of those relinquishing dogs or cats also thought (incorrectly) that animals misbehave to spite their guardians. Similarly, Clinton Sanders (1994,1999) found considerable ignorance about the care of animals among the clients in the veterinary practice that he studied. Much of the vets’ time went to educating clients and providing instructive literature.” [8]
Stray animal population
Dog bites or injuries to human beings and other animals, minimizing the occurrence of road or transport accidents, and reducing nuisance and fecal contamination of the environment caused by stray dogs during breeding are the primary reasons to control the stray animal population. The growing stray animal population raises concerns for the health of the inhabitants, through Zoonoses. Occupational Hazards and the general proliferation of unhygienic conditions facilitate the spread of vector-borne diseases. Accidents and cases of animal nuisance follow suit, and neither is conducive to the normal quality of life for the general public. In New Delhi, there has been a recorded minor injury to 2.5 out of every 1,000 people and major injuries to 5.3 out of 1,000, with an overall rate of bite injuries of approximately 8 out of every 1,000 people every year. [13]
Outlook and thinking of organizations and individuals in solving this problem
Social problems involve two parties, in finding a reliable solution. Organizations that are invested in the betterment of the people’s daily lives and their manifesto to the people, the ones who deal with the problem daily. These two parties, based on their proximity to the problem, develop different understandings and solutions for the same problem. Institutional thinking tends to ignore the salient aspects of the condition the person finds and how that person associates the problem with their daily life. This reality becomes all the more apparent when we realize that animals continue to arrive at shelters, despite the low-cost sterilization, abundant training opportunities, and easy access to reliable information about animal health and behavior, forcing us to think if the institutional way of thinking about the problem of unwanted pets is warranted or not. Since pets are viewed by institutional “thinking” as lifelong commitments, shelters work to provide services that enable people to maintain their animals in their homes. Interviews, however, show that the majority of people only want bothersome animals removed from their homes. The intricacies of establishing claims and how societal problems are solved are shown freshly by this misalignment of intents. Specifically, the “paradox of popularisation” refers to the tendency for definitions of social problems to be overlooked or made worse by efforts to win public support for them.
One must understand that shelters frame the problem to ensure public support. This often is the cause of a cascade of detrimental behaviors on the part of the people, who are encouraged to surrender their pets, due to the lighter choice of words, which dull the impact of their decisions when compared to owners who leave their pets to fend for themselves. [8]
Methodology — Online Survey
Our survey was shared on LinkedIn and through WhatsApp Groups. At the moment of writing, the Google form registered 14 [fourteen] entries. The survey has been divided into 3 [three] unique sections to ensure effective participation and close-to-true responses; Exploratory Questions were employed to establish a baseline knowledge of the participants, Binary Questions placed yes-or-no questions to force participants to choose and take a stance, Subjective Questions allowed for the participants to think and share their perspective through answers with no clear answers, rather a unique perspective of the public — the objective of the project.
Discussions
Age Groups (Graph 1) — The survey recorded 13 [thirteen] responses in the age group of 15–25 years and 1 [one] response in the 25–64 years. The team believes that to improve this survey, the age groups must be further demarcated and more limited in their ranges.
Participant Gender — The survey received equal numbers of female and male entries numbering at 7 [seven], allowing us to have an equitable representation in this regard.
Moving to the Exploratory Questions. When defining what a stray animal means, 5 [five] responses of 14 [fourteen] perceive them as — Animals without an owner. 42% of the participants are aware of the problem and do not know how to support municipal initiatives, while 1 [one] participant believes that the problem of a growing stray animal population does not exist.
Most probable cause that contributes to a growing stray animal population — 1) Locals continue to feed and support the stray animal population unknowingly, 2) High concentration of waste (edibles) in middle- and lower-class neighborhoods support the population, 3) Inadequate sterilization efforts to control the stray animal population. The survey also indicated 3 [three] participants believe that current animal healthcare and welfare systems left more to be desired.
Preferred Solution — Showed an overwhelming 99% towards Sterilization and Trap, Neuter Release Programmes while the remaining 1 [one] individuals believes that Mass Culling is a viable solution.
Categorizing Stray Dogs — Following WHO guidelines stray animals are seen as either 1) Restricted or Supervised Dogs | Fully Dependent, Restricted, and Supervised, 2) Family Dogs | Full Dependent, Semi Restricted, 3) Neighbourhood Dogs | Semi Dependent, Restricted, and Supervised, 4) Feral Dogs | Independent and Unrestricted.
The most interesting finding of this question has been in the misunderstood definition of a Feral Dog. A dog is considered feral when it exhibits a clear issue with its gait and the way its mouth hangs open and salivates unusually. Feral in colloquial usage labels dogs as a threat to humans which often misrepresents the situation because it is subjective to the person under duress rather than the health conditions of the dog in question.
Finally, we find ourselves with a clear answer to the biggest question, who should take responsibility for tackling the Stray Animal Problem? (Graph 3)
Graph 4 shows that the onus to solve and tackle this problem greatly lies on the shoulders of the State Governments and Animal Welfare Organizations.
To the curious, please find the Survey (Link) here for your participation. I thank you for your time.
Solutions to the Stray Animal Problem
Proper garbage disposal has been the flagship solution offered by the World Health Organization. Scientifically this makes immense sense in the long run, for one the biggest drivers of a growing stray animal (dog) population are free-flowing garbage (food source) for the canines. This is evident in the streets of many neighborhoods. For this solution to work actively and consistently studies must be undertaken to understand the carrying capacity of a region. By doing so, we realize the extent to which a population can grow and plan our solution for the future.
Animal Birth Control program has been a stalwart solution towards taming a growing stray animal population. As of today, Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 notified by the Central Government of India reasserts the importance of State Chief Secretaries, Principal Secretaries of the Animal Husbandry Department, and Urban Development Department with the local bodies responsibly carrying out sterilization programs across their constituencies.
Finally, on a tangent and exploring the ability to track stray dogs in real time —
Microchip implantation on the stray animal population. In hopes of tracking the stray animal population in an area, dogs and cats were implanted with microchips much like their wild counterparts. Although it provides a great way to statistically analyze the population of stray animals in shelters to those on the roads, the high rate of return of microchipped dogs and cats to their owners supported microchipping as a valuable permanent pet identification method. Bundling of microchip implantation and registration, point-of-implantation data registration, use of annual compliance and update reminders, and providing access to all registries are potential solutions. [14] Now, we talk about our solution — a mobile application.
Pawtector — Mobile App
The creation of a mobile application to aid in combat the growing population of stray animals is based on the philosophy of finding owners for their desired pets. For instance, the system allows users to adopt pets and find lost pets. The system serves as a platform by allowing users to join volunteer services to help animals listed in the system.
With the platform provided, it will be a lot easier to find lost pets as communication is established.
We model our main objectives as seen here [4], into the following:
1. To reduce the number of stray animals by helping them to find their rightful owner through the platform established in the application where users can share the photos and location of a stray animal.
2. To help pet owners find their lost pets by allowing owners to share pictures of their lost animals.
3. To encourage volunteers to participate in charity activities to help stray animals.
Users of this prototype system have a platform to adopt stray animals. When users come across a homeless animal, they will be able to share a photo of the animal on this platform. The owner’s details will also contain their phone number and address.
The application shall contain a feature to allow pet owners to post photos of their lost animals will aid in the recovery of lost pets. The owners of the lost pet may get in touch with them. When domesticated pets join a stray pack, the situation around a growing stray animal population moves further away from being solved.
We also want to develop a feature to allow organizers to plan charitable events, and motivate volunteers to take part in charitable activities like helping animals. Ensuring that the community, locality, and neighborhood contribute to the success of this application is essential.
The next step of this solution will open the application to the public for stress testing and their feedback.
Credit for this solution goes to my teammates, Avantika Krishnan, Arundhati Menon, and Aditi.
Common Threads between Nations and Recommendations to Combat a growing stray dog population
Free-roaming dogs are becoming more common in many nations, mostly in urban areas. The overpopulation of dogs is a result of human intervention, which has been demonstrated by science. Dog populations become extinct in the absence of food, water, and shelter. Dogs can survive because humans feed them, they find edible wastes, or they attack a flock of sheep even when water and shelter are always available. Dogs cannot maintain themselves like cats can, making them dependent on people. There are indeed very few stray dogs in sparsely populated places. Dog populations will need to be reduced in some other way as man produces abundant food and hence the environment for their growth. Some individuals could get the conclusion that there is no hope for their countries because this description demonstrates how closely a high level of income is tied to the decline in the number of stray dogs. Nonetheless, scientific research demonstrates that CNVR is always practical and reduces stray populations. Collect Neuter Vaccinate and Return, or CNVR for short, is the process of gathering stray dogs and dogs with owners, sterilizing, immunizing, labeling, and returning them to their original locations. Research has shown that the number of dogs will decrease when sterile populations are produced. The Carrying Capacity establishes the size of a population. Populations will always increase until they reach this maximum number of members if there are enough resources. They will be replaced by new dogs who will subsequently be forced to survive on their own in appalling conditions. A pack frequently produces new young to maintain its strength. Additional puppies are produced, but due to a shortage of supplies, many fragile canines eventually suffer horribly from malnutrition or dehydration and pass away. The visible extent of suffering is reduced when the number of dogs is steady but sterile. CNVR is a tried-and-true technique that can assist every nation in the globe in reducing the number of stray animals humanely.
It is advisable to incorporate and involve animal welfare organizations from other nations because they were crucial in the Netherlands in reducing the number of stray dog populations and the amount of animal suffering. The visible extent of suffering is reduced when the number of dogs is steady but sterile. CNVR is a tried-and-true technique that can assist every nation in the globe in reducing the number of stray animals humanely.
It is advisable to incorporate and involve animal welfare organizations from other nations because they were crucial in the Netherlands in reducing the number of stray dog populations and the amount of animal suffering. [7]
Conclusions
Solutions to this unique problem of the stray animal population in the cities of India have to be unique and strive to break new ground in technological applications. For instance, the application of deep learning principles with a mobile device to identify and record the activity of stray animals [15] seeks to do just that. We believe that understanding the societal perception harbored by the people of these cities provides an invaluable source of information that will help us recommend ways to solve this unique but common problem.
Public perception and awareness play a quintessential role in ensuring the policies and initiatives taken by organizations and authorities are informed and effective on the streets. From subsidizing the pet market, taking Trap-Neuter-Return, raising awareness for pet owners to get their pets early sterilization, encouraging transfer programs among shelters, and so on. Sterilization remains one of the most effective means to tackle the stray animal problem, but public awareness remains much to be desired for. The problem of unwanted pets poses a duality in both the social lens and the economic one to make changes to reduce the proliferation of the stray animal population. The problem lies in the general understanding of the damage stray animals do to the urban and rural areas, for how poverty or crime are seen as major threats, the growing population of stray animals does not have a place in the list of problems for many residents, which we believe is the source of the problem.
References
[1] A. Abdulkarim, M. A. K. B. G. Khan, and E. Aklilu, “Stray Animal Population Control: Methods, Public Health Concern, Ethics, and Animal Welfare Issues,” World’s Veterinary Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 319–326, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.54203/scil.2021.wvj44.
[2] L. Feiyang, “Multi-Source Review on Domestic Stray-Animal Problems”, doi: 10.25236/assah.2020.074.
[3] Aline G.A. Guilloux, Ligia I. Panachão, Ana J.S. Alves, Carolina B. Zetun, Alex J.F. Cassenote, and Ricardo A. Dias, “Stray dogs in urban fragments: relation between population’s perception of their presence and socio-demographic factors”.
[4] R. Kolandaisamy, K. Subaramaniam, and I. Kolandaisamy, “Stray Animal Mobile App,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312057960
[5] F. J. Villatoro, L. Naughton-Treves, M. A. Sepúlveda, P. Stowhas, F. O. Mardones, and E. A. Silva-Rodríguez, “When free-ranging dogs threaten wildlife: Public attitudes toward management strategies in southern Chile,” J Environ Manage, vol. 229, pp. 67–75, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.035.
[6] S. Jagriti Bhalla, R. Kemmers, A. Vasques, and A. Tamim Vanak, “‘Stray appetites’: a socio-ecological analysis of free-ranging dogs living alongside human communities in Bangalore, India”, doi: 10.1007/s11252–021–01097–4/Published.
[7] B. DOGRESEARCH Isabelle Sternheim, “How Holland became free of Stray dogs,” 2012.
[8] L. Irvine, “The Problem of Unwanted Pets: A Case Study in How Institutions ‘Think’ about Clients’ Needs,” Soc Probl, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 550–566, 2003, doi: 10.1525/sp.2003.50.4.550.
[9] M. L. Cobb, A. Lill, and P. C. Bennett, “Not all dogs are equal: Perception of canine welfare varies with context,” Animal Welfare, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 27–35, 2020, doi: 10.7120/09627286.29.1.027.
[10] E. Von Dietze and D. Gardner, “Euthanizing wildlife: experiences and coping strategies among people who conduct euthanasia,” Surrey Beatty & Sons, 2014.
[11] L. Irvine, “The Problem of Unwanted Pets: A Case Study in How Institutions ‘Think’ about Clients’ Needs,” Soc Probl, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 550–566, 2003, doi: 10.1525/sp.2003.50.4.550.
[12] P. Sandøe, J. B. H. Jensen, F. Jensen, and S. S. Nielsen, “Shelters reflect but cannot solve underlying problems with relinquished and stray animals — A retrospective study of dogs and cats entering and leaving shelters in Denmark from 2004 to 2017,” Animals, vol. 9, no. 10, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.3390/ani9100765.
[13] B. B. Singh, S. Ghatak, H. S. Banga, J. P. S. Gill, and B. Singh, “Veterinary urban hygiene: A challenge for India,” OIE Revue Scientifique et Technique, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 645–656, 2013, doi: 10.20506/rst.32.3.2251.
[14] “Characterization of animals with microchips entering animal shelters”.
[15] R.-C. Chen, Q.-E. Liu, and C.-Y. Liao, “Using Deep Learning to Track Stray Animals with Mobile Device,” J Comput (Taipei), vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 95–101, 2021, doi: 10.3966/199115992021023201008.
