India can resolve dog-human conflict like US and Netherlands without killing the canine
Dogs are eventually ‘people’ animals and any solution to a dog-related problem has to centre around people.
The issue of street dogs has reared its head again, with their temporary removal in Delhi during the G20 summit as well as several incidents of dog bites in the NCR region. A significant number of neighbourhood conflicts these days revolve around the issue of street dogs. Since when did the dog, humans’ so-called best friend, become such a hated enemy? Are we at all moving towards a more humane society or will conflicts over dogs only escalate?
In any conflict, each party is entitled to their viewpoint but things have to be settled within the legal framework even though this may come at a cost. The legal framework in India governed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control rules has been kind to our four-legged friends. The ABC rules incorporate the most humane methods of population control, which is “capture-sterilise-return”. However, in a densely populated nation like ours, the gravity of the situation on account of diseases carried by dogs cannot be overstated. Between 2019 and 2022, India reported a staggering 1.6 crore cases of dog bite. Along with this, it is estimated that India witnesses 18,000-20,000 deaths annually due to rabies (Parliament of India Data, 2023).
If countries like the US and the Netherlands have experienced success in controlling their stray/street dog populations, it can be attributed to attitudinal changes along with conducive civic circumstances. The Netherlands, for instance, claims to be completely free of stray dogs and also rabies. The country has reportedly been rabies-free since 1923, and its experience shows that once people understand the relationship between dogs and humans and the supporting legal provisions are made, change is fairly quick. Adoption from shelters was particularly encouraged through measures such as higher taxes on store-bought dogs.
The India story can be viewed in the context of several changes (socio-economic, political, and cultural) that have taken place in the past few decades. Social media, for instance, while having its advantages in connecting people and resolving issues, has also become instrumental in creating new conflicts or unnecessarily intensifying others. Another recent development is the increased construction and/or building of cemented roads due to which the muddy/sandy areas in the neighbourhood, which community dogs would use to rest and also keep themselves cool in the summer months, have been taken away. Dogs get irritable in such circumstances, which makes them prone to biting. The typical reaction is that humans stop feeding such dogs as also others, or hit them and make all efforts to drive them away. Without proper shelter and adequate food, how is it possible to carry on? This hostility and media coverage ensures that the cycle of confrontation continues.
Community or private property?
A standard argument in favour of removal of dogs reflects the application of an “efficiency” criterion used by economists. If most people in a locality would like dogs to be removed, then removing them would increase the total welfare of society. However, efficiency arguments work best when purely economic considerations are involved. From a broader perspective – in terms of maintaining a balance in nature (removal of dogs increases population of rats, monkeys, cats, and other species), and from the point of view of the environment and preserving “life” in general, an efficiency argument may not carry much bite.
However, one must wonder how we amassed a stray dog population of 6.2 crore (State of Pet Homelessness Index of India, 2023). Is it due to the lax nature of the ABC rules that prevent mass culling of dogs? This is not completely accurate since a catch-and-kill policy can prove to be ineffective if new, possibly more aggressive dogs, take over the territories. A more effective way to control street dog population is to release the sterilised and vaccinated dogs back into their old habitat and lower the birth rates of the area on account of sterilisation.
ABC 2023 rules in India make a distinction between community dogs and pet dogs, with the former living on the street or within a gated campus. This can make assigning responsibility tricky. Pet dogs, for instance, are typically considered private property, thus making it relatively easier to address responsibility issues. In this context, Sokhey, Hunter, and Liu (2013) in their paper “Dog Ownership through the Eyes of a Stray Dog: Property Rights and the Stray Dog Population” find that countries where property rights are relatively more secure have virtually no stray dogs. More secure property rights through establishment of clear ownership laws and clarity in ownership practices (e.g. imposition of a fine if a dog litters, etc.) ensure more structure. In fact, “social influences” also work and could be used instead of fines to alter behaviour. Thaler and Sunstein note in “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness” (2008) that such social influences have been successful in encouraging dog owners to carry bags while walking their dogs. When rules are clearly laid out, it reduces the possibility of harassment of both dog owners and non-dog owners. Secure ownership and well-structured rules encourage adoption of dogs of all breeds while alleviating the fear of being harassed and also help bring down the population of street dogs. The basic message is that the rule of law matters in the animal welfare debate. When rules are clear, which they aren’t in India currently, a lot of the problems can be resolved.
Further, taking the current ABC rules about feeding street dogs as a “given”, these should be implemented in all seriousness at the community level or by the area’s Residents’ Welfare Association (RWA) while building consensus about feeding spots, timing, and so on. It is absolutely essential that dogs be fed at regular times as a hungry dog gets irritable and may bite. In those cases where a community is fortunate enough to have motivated individuals or groups willing to take up the responsibility of animal welfare, it seems counterproductive to engage in endless debate and conflict. The options available to the non-cooperative resident are as follows: either bear an RWA fee that will include the cost for vaccination, deworming and feeding of the dogs or allow those motivated by their conscience to do some or all of it for free. Since there is no legal recourse wherein the dogs can be relocated to another place or culled, it is both cheaper and amicable to allow civil society to take over the role of feeding dogs.
Sensitisation and familiarisation programmes can also help reduce irrational fear of dogs. Ideally, such familiarisation has to begin at the school level. Unlike schools in many countries abroad, how many schools in India take children to animal shelters to offer care for animals?
In the typical fashion for economists, we conclude by proposing both short and long-run solutions. Long-run changes are structural, involving education and changing attitudes towards private property and responsibilities. Of course, these changes take time. In the short run, regardless of which side of the street dog issue one is on, the most efficient solution to managing the conflict is to allow those predisposed to dog welfare to undertake actions without interference and hostility. This, along with the existing neuter and release programme, and policy measures that encourage adoption of local breeds, should help bring down the street dog population. Dogs are eventually “people” animals and any solution to a dog-related problem has to centre around people.
Niti Bhutani is Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Hindu College, University of Delhi. Shaurya Bansal is pursuing a Master’s in Economics at the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK. Views are personal. (Edited by Prashant)
