For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/anthology.php#8

A global distribution of Dogs (Canis familiaris) have an estimated total population size of around 700 million (1). Of this 75% are classified as “free-roaming”, which cause significant implications for public health, animal welfare, and wildlife due to its high population density. Dog densities can exist in high numbers but vary globally. For example, densities as high as 719 dogs per sq. km have been estimated in Maharashtra in India (3). Unowned dogs are free to roam unrestricted, without human supervision, while they still depend upon humans directly or indirectly for resources such as food, water, and shelter, and are referred as stray dogs (2).

Due to the free-roaming nature of these dogs, transmission of rabies and other zoonotic pathogens create a great public health issue where these dogs exist in high densities (4, 5, 6). They also have immense poor health and welfare conditions, due to inadequate diet and a high prevalence of starvation and dehydration (7, 8), since they depend directly or indirectly on human waste due to lack of availability of food (9). Stray dogs also lack veterinary care such as vaccination or antiparasitics and are therefore more susceptible to high prevalence of skin conditions and ectoparasites and diseases.  To add to their misery they are exposed to injury caused by road traffic accidents, abusive treatment by locals (10). Such cases are very prevalent where poisoning, electrocution, drowning, or carbon monoxide poisoning are used as means of removal of dogs (11).

Methods applied to control dog population
Controlling stray dog population includes culling, fertility control, and sheltering. In guiding future dog population management involves understanding the effectiveness of each of these methods. For managing dog population different groups like researchers, animal welfare organisations, and government agencies are often responsible (12). Two primary ways, of culling, and fertility control, are applied to manage the free-roaming dogs’ population (13).
A. Mass destruction
In developing countries mass removal of dogs is practised to control the large populations of free-roaming dogs, such as in many South Asian countries, although there is a religious sentiment against killing animals, in much of these countries. The methods applied by civic authorities for dog removal are very inhumane from an animal welfare perspective. This creates a hostile environment between the government functionaries charged with collecting dogs and the dichotomising population. People are always divided into two groups, one strongly advocating the removal of all dogs from the streets and other resisting the culling policies.
B. Culling
Culling is the killing of individual dogs for the purpose of population reduction. For discouraging the use of culling, The World Health Organisation published guidelines in 1990 recommending alternative methods like registration and identification, vaccination, public education, and sterilisation (14). In developed countries, injectable barbiturates are more commonly used, while poisoning and shooting are often used by developing or poor countries. (13).
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) too exterminated street dogs. Figures available through Right to Information Act petitions show that 4, 49,568 dogs were killed by the MCGM in the decade between 1984 and 1994. In 1994, however, the MCGM admitted the lack of effectiveness of this methodology in a circular (MCGM, Health Dept., 1994): “Hitherto this department adopted a system of catching and killing stray dogs to control their population as part of our measure to control the dreaded disease ‘rabies’ and for many years now we have killed about 45,000 stray dogs every year. In spite of killing so many dogs every year, we have not been able to bring down their population in Greater Bombay.”(21)
In many places, dogs are caught and displaced to some central facility to be killed where poisoning is not used, while the techniques used at these facilities are really barbaric. After taking to the central depot, they may be electrocuted, gassed, or drowned. In the city of Vishakhapatnam, the caged dogs were doused with water and the metal cage connected to the electrical supply to electrocute the animals en masse. Due to overcrowding, many animals are not in contact with the metal fabric of the cage, with some animals taking many minutes before expiring. Many, who were not killed in the ordeal, were clubbed to death. In Delhi a similar effort at dog removal killed a third of the strays, with no evidence of long-term reduction in the dog population (22).
There has also been no long-term effect on the population of Kathmandu’s street dogs even after being poisoned for at least the last 50 years. In Chennai, the municipal authorities’ dog-culling program had been in operation for the past 120 years (22). Every year the Hong Kong government kills approximately twenty thousand dogs and another thirteen thousand are killed by welfare organizations, in an operation that has been described as “annual harvesting”, similar to that practiced in wild animal control in Africa, with little impact on the free-roaming dog population (23).
While violent killing is uncouth, few poisons are humane in action. Strychnine is distressing to the poisoned animal, it causes respiratory arrest through paralysis of the respiratory muscles. Some of the most thorough animal welfare legislation in the world is in India, and even where laws do exist, as in much of the developing world they are poorly enforced, even in India. Although proper procedure is laid down by law, which involves catching the free-roaming dog in a large sack (24), most municipal dogcatchers do not comply with that and us other methods to capture strays. Long iron tongs, similar to very large fire tongs, are used to grab by whichever part of their body they get hold off, leading to penetrating injuries of soft tissues. Throughout most of India, the animals are lassoed with chains or ropes which causes partial or complete loss of consciousness, due to the noose, leading to cerebral anoxia through occlusion of the carotid and other arteries to the brain. After cruelly getting hold of the dog, the dogcatcher must then move the animal into a suitable vehicle for transport to central depots. The dog in the sack method involves carrying the sac to the vehicle and then emptying it into the vehicle. While using the tongs method, the dog is lifted up by the tongs and put in the vehicle. Sometimes for the catcher’s convenience, the tail or a hind leg is often held by an assistant, and the animal is stretched to reduce struggling. The catcher will then whirl the animal around his head on the end of the noose before releasing it airborne into the catching vehicle. Often catching teams carry baton with which to beat the uncontrollable animal. Once caught, the animals may be held for many hours, even days, usually without food or water in the vehicle. Usually a caged vehicle is filled to its maximum capacity, making them stand one on another. (14)
C. Sterilization
Surgical or chemical sterilisation or contraception are used for fertility control. The predominant method of fertility control is catch-neuter-release (CNR) after surgical sterilisation (15, 16, 17). Spay or castration surgery is carried out in either a fixed-location or mobile clinic. CNR has been carried out in several states of India (18, 19, 20). Surgical sterilization of dogs and cats is one of the most commonly performed procedures in veterinary practice, and is done as a method of contraception to aid in the stray overpopulation problem, as well as to prevent diseases associated with the reproductive system, such as mammary neoplasia or benign prostatic hyperplasia. The various surgical sterilization techniques include traditional midline ovariohysterectomy, lateral flank ovariohysterectomy, castration, early age gonadectomy, ovariectomy, laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy and ovariectomy, and vasectomy (25).

1. Hughes, J.; Macdonald, D.W. A review of the interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 157, 341–351 2. Matter, H.; Daniels, T. Dog ecology and population biology. In Dogs, zoonoses and public health 2000., chapter 2 ,pg.17. 3. Belsare, A.; Gompper, M. Assessing demographic and epidemiologic parameters of rural dog populations in India during mass vaccination campaigns. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 111, 139–146 4. Jimenez, S.; Perez, A.; Gil, H.; Schantz, P.M.; Ramalle, E.; Juste, R.A. Progress in control of cystic echinococcosis in La Rioja, Spain: decline in infection prevalences in human and animal hosts and economic costs and benefits. ACTA Trop. 2002, 83, 213–221 5. Economides, P.; Christofi, G. Experience gained and evaluation of the Echinococcosis/Hydatidosis eradication programmes in Cyprus 1971-1999. In Proceedings of the Cestode Zoonoses: Echinococcosis and cysticercosis: an ermergent and global problem; Craig, P and Pawlowski, Z., Ed.; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; Vol. 341, pp. 367–379 6. Morters, M.K.; McKinley, T.J.; Restif, O.; Conlan, A.J.K.; Cleaveland, S.; Hampson, K.; Whay, H.R.;Damriyasa, I.M.; Wood, J.L.N. The demography of free-roaming dog populations and applications to disease and population control. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 1096–1106 7. Matter, H.; Daniels, T. Dog ecology and population biology. In Dogs, zoonoses and public health; Macpherson, C.N.L., Meslin, F.X., Wandeler, A.I., Eds.; CABI Publishing: New York, 2000; pp. 17–62 8. HSI Case Study of an incentive program to encourage the sterilization of dogs (and cats) and greater attention to animal welfare on Abaco Island in the Bahamas; Washington, D.C, 2001 9. Butler, J.; Brown, W.; du Toit, J. Anthropogenic Food Subsidy to a Commensal Carnivore: The Value and Supply of Human Faeces in the Diet of Free-Ranging Dogs. Animals 2018, 8, 1–16 10. International Companion Animal Management Coalition (ICAM) Humane Dog Population Management Guidance; United Kingdom; ICAM, 2008 11. Reese, J. Dogs and dog control in developing countries. In The state of the animals; Salem, D., Rowan, A., Eds.; Humane Society Press: Washington, D.C, 2005; pp. 55–64 12. Tasker, L. Stray animal control practices (Europe); London, WSPA and RSPCA, 2007 13. Dalla Villa, P.; Kahn, S.; Stuardo, L.; Iannetti, L.; Di Nardo, A.; Serpell, J.A. Free-roaming dog control among OIE-member countries. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010, 97, 58–63 14. Reese, J. Dogs and dog control in developing countries. In The state of the animals; Salem, D., Rowan, A., Eds.; Humane Society Press: Washington, D.C, 2005; pp. 55–64 15. Reece, J.F.; Chawla, S.K. Control of rabies in Jaipur, India, by the sterilisation and vaccination of neighbourhood dogs. Vet. Rec. 2006, 159, 379–383 16. Totton, S.C.; Wandeler, A.I.; Zinsstag, J.; Bauch, C.T.; Ribble, C.S.; Rosatte, R.C.; McEwen, S.A. Stray dog population demographics in Jodhpur, India following a population control/rabies vaccination program. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010, 97, 51–57 17. Yoak, A.J.; Reece, J.F.; Gehrt, S.D.; Hamilton, I.M. Disease control through fertility control: Secondary benefits of animal birth control in Indian street dogs. Prev. Vet. Med. 2014, 113, 152–156 18. Reece, J.F.; Chawla, S.K. Control of rabies in Jaipur, India, by the sterilisation and vaccination of neighbourhood dogs. Vet. Rec. 2006, 159, 379–383 19. Totton, S.C.; Wandeler, A.I.; Zinsstag, J.; Bauch, C.T.; Ribble, C.S.; Rosatte, R.C.; McEwen, S.A. Stray dog population demographics in Jodhpur, India following a population control/rabies vaccination program. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010, 97, 51–57 20. Yoak, A.J.; Reece, J.F.; Gehrt, S.D.; Hamilton, I.M. Disease control through fertility control: Secondary benefits of animal birth control in Indian street dogs. Prev. Vet. Med. 2014, 113, 152–156 21. Abodh Aras ; Our friends who cannot speak. October 23, 2016. The Hindu 22. Blue Cross of Hyderabad/Animal Welfare Board of India. 2000. Summary of a seminar on management of stray dog population and rabies control (June) 23. Dahmer, T., B. Coman, J. Robinson. 2000. Ecology, behaviour, and persistence of packs of stray/feral dogs with implications and practical recommendations for control. Final report to Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Conservation, Government of Hong Kong. March 24. Prevention of Cruelty (Capture of Animals) Rules 1979 made under ss38(2)(i) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. Government of India, New Delhi 25. Lisa M. Howe, Surgical methods of contraception and sterilization, Theriogenology 2006, 66, 500-509