Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Supplementary Submissions

Transcription

1 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Supplementary Submissions Page ID Name Organisation Original Venue (and Hearing page) 1 DMC18/8 Ian Woodley Kerikeri page 3 10 DMC18/68 Andrew Riddell Kerikeri page 5 11 DMC18/77 Dr Mark Feldman Kerikeri page 7 14 DMC18/241 Marica Fullam Kerikeri page DMC18/316 Lloyd Jerome Kerikeri page DMC18/592 Dogtired Ratepayer Kaikohe page DMC18/802 Yvonne Evans/Don Hurst Te Wahapu Reserves Kaikohe page DMC18/861 Bryan Staff Hihi Ratepayers Kaitaia page DMC18/872 Scrumptious Fruit Trust Scrumptious Fruit Trust Kerikeri page DMC18/938 Ellen Haretuku Kaikohe page DMC18/957 Rosemary Linehan Rangiputa Residents and Ratepayers Kaitaia page DMC18/1001 Peter Williams Kerikeri page DMC18/1124 Bob Widerin Kerikeri page DMC18/1160 Jan Graham Kerikeri page DMC18/1182 Arthur Prentice Kaikohe page DMC18/1188 K F Kerikeri page DMC18/1210 AnnMaree Mills Kerikeri page DMC18/1214 Andrew Mentor Kiwi Coast Kaikohe page DMC18/1217 Friends of Rangitane Stream Kerikeri page DMC18/1222 Ron Melville Kerikeri page DMC18/1261 Bruce Thorpe Kaikohe page 115

2 DMC18/8 Supplementary Page 1

3 DMC18/8 Supplementary Page 2

4 DMC18/8 Supplementary Figure 16: Te Haumi Beach Document number A Page 23 of 28 Page 3

5 DMC18/8 Supplementary Page 4

6 DMC18/8 Supplementary Page 5

7 DMC18/8 Supplementary Page 6

8 DMC18/8 Supplementary Page 7

9 DMC18/8 Supplementary Page 8

10 DMC18/8 Supplementary Page 9

11 DMC18/68 Supplementary Kathryn Trewin From: Sent: To: Subject: Andrew Riddell 29 October, :02 PM Kathryn Trewin dog bylaw hearing Tuesday 30 October -- cannot attend Kia ora I am scheduled to be heard in support of my submission on the dog control bylaws at 1220 hrs on Tuesday 30 October. I am unable to attend this hearing. There are four points I wish to reiterate in relation to my submission, which seeks that all dogs in public places (formed road reserves, unformed road reserves, other Council reserves) within kiwi concentration areas should be on a lead at all times. 1. There are areas in Far North District where controls on dogs and pest control has resulted in the kiwi population growing at a (DOC estimated) rate of some 3.6% (based on call count increases) compared to a 2% decline in North Island brown kiwi numbers across all of the North Island between 1996 and 2018 (which is a decline from 35,000 birds to 25,100 birds). 2. Dogs are known to be a major killer of adult kiwi. For example, Pierce and Sporle, in 1997, analysed the cause of 194 reported kiwi deaths between 1990 and 1995 and found that dogs were responsible for 70% (135) of the deaths. 3. The current lack of controls on dogs on formed and unformed roads, and Council reserves in kiwi concentration areas is compromising the prevalence of no dog and cat subdivisions occurring in these areas. 4. There are reported kiwi death records produced by the Department of Conservation, including for the Far North and the Bay of Islands. These understate, probably significantly, the actual number of kiwi deaths because this reporting is limited to kiwi that are reported to the Department of Conservation. For example the reported kiwi deaths record show that between 2003 and 2018 on the Russell Peninsula there have been 4 kiwi confirmed as killed by dogs and 3 suspected as being killed bu dogs. The important consideration here is that this is an incomplete record as it is reported deaths, not all deaths. Thanks Andrew Riddell 1 Page 10

12 DMC18/77 Supplementary Page 11

13 DMC18/77 Supplementary Page 12

14 DMC18/77 Supplementary Page 13

15 DMC18/241 Supplementary Data from and then the profiles for each council. COUNCIL AREA POPULATION DOG OWNERS** No. DOGS % Of POP No. DOG AREAS OFF LEASH FNDC 6,678 Km 55,734 5,876 8, Kerikeri - 2 Kaitaia - 1 Kaikohe 2 WHANGAREI 2,712 Km 76,995 8,161 10, spread over 9 areas within the district + a number of beaches KAIPARA 3,109 Km 18,960 2,823 4, All reserves except ones specified as leashed or prohibited areas. Also some beaches THAMES/COROMANDEL 2,207 Km 2,207 3,453 4, At least 1 dog exercise area and 1 beach within each of 5 areas in the district *2013 census data **As at 31 May 2018 NOTES No areas provided for rest of towns within the district Non specified beaches offleash. Restricted beaches hours 9-5 and from 20 Dec to 31 Jan Restricted beaches hours 9-6 and from 1 Dec to 28 Feb Non specified beaches offleash. Most restricted beaches hours 9-6 and from 20 Dec to 31 Jan 1 Page 14

16 DMC18/241 Supplementary Comments on above data FNDC provides very few off-leash areas and the proposed changes are more restrictive as compared with the other districts. I chose 2 of these districts as they lie adjacent to FNDC and the Thames/Coromandel district as it is regarded as a district which places a strong emphasis on conservation. I believe these districts have dog control policies which better balance conservation and general recreation needs and those of responsible dog owners and their need to safely exercise their dogs off leash. Comments on other submissions In general, I support the entire submission of BOI Watchdogs (DMC 18/1186). I oppose the Forest and Bird submission (DMC 18/1216) which goes well beyond just trying to manage / protect wildlife in Special Character Areas/ dog exclusion areas. They state that in their view vehicles and to some extent people should be excluded from these areas (page 85, point 21). It appears, in the view of this group, that there should be no access at all by anyone. They also state that they wish to impose extremely strict controls on dogs on private property (page 85, point 24). This is totally outrageous and, I think reflects the extreme antidog views of this group. I request that this extreme submission be taken with a very large grain of salt. In general, I oppose the entire submission of Scrumptious Fruit Trees (DMC 18/872). In particular, I wish to comment on one of the statistics quoted in this submission (Submission point 3, page 63). The submission states that less than 2% of Northland population are registered dog owners. However the data I provided above contradicts this. The percentage varies from between 10.5 and 14.9 across the 3 districts that make up the Northland region. Exclusion of dogs from beaches in favour of priority for non-dog owners breaches the beach access rights of dog owners, who make a significant minority of the population. Specific changes requested to plan 1. Keep all beaches off-leash except for designated restricted beaches. 2. Change dates for designated restricted beaches to be from 20 Dec to 31 Jan, in line with Whangarei and Thames/Coromandel districts and make hours from 9am to 5 pm. 3. Install clear signs stating which areas are off-leash and for those areas with restricted access, when off-leash is allowed (similar to those used in Thames/Coromandel district - See submission DMC18/1043). 4. Provide doggy do bins at each designated off-leash area. 5. Provide at least 1 off-leash area within town environs for each town in the district so that elderly and less mobile dog owners can still exercise their dogs freely. Do not require the off-leash areas to be fully fenced as this is not a standard requirement throughout New Zealand. 6. Allow dogs on-leash in Kerikeri Domain. 7. Provide at least 1 off-leash area in the centre of Keriker1. For example: The flat walkway along the side of the Kerikeri river starting behind the Waitotara Reserve and extending to the walkway entrance near the end of Waitotara Rd. The reserve area that is accessed from the road that runs down past the Kerikeri Union Church and lies on the east side of the Heritage Highway bypass. 2 Page 15

17 DMC18/241 Supplementary 8. Fairly balance competing conservation and general recreation needs and those of dog owners to safely exercise their dogs both on-leash and off-leash. 3 Page 16

18 DMC18/316 Supplementary Page 17

19 DMC18/592 Supplementary Draft Dog Management Policy 2018 FNDC Thank you for taking the time to review my thoughts on this important issue. Proposal to allow dogs off-leash on beaches I strongly oppose any weakening off the current position. All dogs should be on a leash at all times in public. Most dog owners are incapable of controlling their dogs when the dogs are excited, provoked etc. I am fed up with my quiet walks on the beach being disturbed by charging dogs or even just curious dogs. So many times when a dog owner finally catches up with their out of control dog I m told he won t bite, he s just friendly. Oh, really?! Dogs are animals and they are unpredictable. You never know what that charging dog is going to do. I m tired of dogs coming over to sniff our picnic or my crotch. I m tired of watching bird-brained dogs chase away the bird life that is so important to our coastal ecosystem. And I m tired of avoiding the dog shit that irresponsible dog owners leave on the beach. There actually need to be stiffer penalties for errant dog owners and the rules need to be rigidly enforced. Two dog limit The two dog limit should apply universally (with exceptions for farmers, hunters, dog breeders). Dogs are no different to firearms; in the wrong hands they can be very dangerous. In fact, all dog owners should be licensed (not just their dogs). And all licenses should require compulsory obedience course attendance and course completion by both dog owner and dog. ACC expenditure for dog related injuries topped $3.2 million last year and that doesn t include the 1,000s of unreported attacks with minor injuries. It is simply not good enough. I live on what used to be a quiet country road. I used to regularly walk this road but no longer do so because of the threatening dogs. So many of the houses here now have dogs that are barking mad. There s the savage Rottweiler that charges the fence literally frothing at the mouth, then further up the road two hunting dogs used to charge out of the property but now are usually confined in cages so just content themselves with barking until I m out of sight. Another neighbour has two dogs that go berserk as soon as they hear a footstep or voices on the road and so on and on it goes. And then there s the insane barking at possums, hedgehogs, and even wind-blown leaves at all hours of the day and night. A world recognised dog training authority once said, if you treat a dog as a human it will treat you as a dog. Unfortunately, New Zealanders have lost the plot when it comes to dog ownership. Come on, Council how long before dog ownership is treated as a serious responsibility not a right? Licence dog owners as well as their dogs, require compulsory owner and dog training and use those fees to rigidly enforce the regulations (most dog owners currently ignore them anyway). I m sorry if I sound angry but I am fed up with selfish dog owners and their dogs. Thank you for your time Sincerely, Dog-tired Ratepayer Page 18

20 Page 19

21 Page 20

22 Page 21

23 Page 22

24 Page 23

25 Page 24

26 DMC18/938 Supplementary Page 25

27 DMC18/938 Supplementary Page 26

28 Page 27

29 DMC18/1001 Supplementary Page 28

30 DMC18/1001 Supplementary Page 29

31 DMC18/1001 Supplementary Page 30

32 DMC18/1124 Supplementary Page 31

33 DMC18/1124 Supplementary Page 32

34 DMC18/1124 Supplementary Page 33

35 DMC18/1124 Supplementary Page 34

36 DMC18/1124 Supplementary Page 35

37 DMC18/1124 Supplementary Page 36

38 DMC18/1124 Supplementary Page 37

39 HUMANE DOG POPULATION MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE DMC18/1160 Supplementary International Companion Animal Management Coalition International Page 38

40 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Contents Introduction ICAM 03 Who this guidance is for 03 Introduction 04 Terminology 05 Definitions 05 Content structure 06 A. Initial data collection and assessment Assessing the local dog population 07 Creating a multi-stakeholder committee 07 B. Influential factors in dog population management Factors influencing dog population size 08 Factors motivating people to control dog populations 10 Education 12 Legislation 12 Registration and identification 13 Sterilisation and contraception 14 Holding facilities and rehoming centres 15 Euthanasia 16 Vaccination and parasite control 16 Controlling access to resources 16 D. Designing the intervention Planning for sustainability 17 Aims, objectives and activities 17 Setting standards for animal welfare 17 Implemention 19 Monitoring and evaluation C. Components of a comprehensive dog population management programme 12 E. Implementation, monitoring and evaluation Annex A: Tools to assess dog population management needs 20 Annex B: Creating a multi-stakeholder committee 22 COVER IMAGE: ROBIN CULLEY/RSPCA PHOTOLIBRARY 02 Page 39

41 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Introduction ICAM The International Companion Animal Management Coalition (ICAM Coalition) is made up of representatives from the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), the Humane Society International (HSI), the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), RSPCA International (the international arm of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW), the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) and the Alliance for Rabies Control (ARC). This group was set up to fulfil several objectives, including the sharing of information and ideas on companion animal population dynamics with a view to coordinating and improving member organisations recommendations and guidance. Each organisation has agreed that it is important to strive to improve our mutual understanding through collaboration. We have a responsibility as funding and advisory bodies to ensure we are offering the most accurate guidance, based on the latest available data and concepts, to those involved with dog population management in the field. We also believe it is important that we endeavour to be transparent and to document our opinions and philosophy whenever possible. It is to this end that this document has been produced it represents our recommendations at the time of writing, based on the knowledge we have accrued to date, and will be subject to updates when appropriate. We are acutely aware of the lack of data in this field and will strive both to support the collection of new data and to incorporate it into our future discussions, assessments and guidelines. November 2007 Who this guidance is for This document is intended for use by government bodies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which are involved in dog population management. The ICAM Coalition believes that responsibility for dog population management properly resides with local or central government. Animal welfare NGOs should not be encouraged, nor seek, to take on the authority s overall responsibility for dog population management other than through a contractual agreement, with appropriate funding and resources. However, animal welfare NGOs play an important role in guiding and supporting government strategy, so it is important for such organisations to have an understanding of all the components of a comprehensive strategy. This will enable them to target their support where it can be most effective and to make the best use of limited resources. Aim As an animal welfare advocate, the ICAM Coalition believes that when population management is deemed necessary, it is essential that it is achieved in a humane manner and ultimately leads to an improvement in the welfare of the dog population as a whole. As NGOs we also believe it is important that population management is achieved as effectively as possible due to limitations on resources and also due to our responsibility to our donors. The aim of this document is to provide guidance on how to assess dog population management needs and how to decide upon the most effective and resource-efficient approach to managing the population in a humane manner 1. We are aware that the status, composition and size of dog populations can vary significantly between and within countries and so there is no single intervention that will work for all situations. Therefore, we strongly advocate the need for initial assessment and consideration of all potential relevant factors before deciding on a programme design. The only concept we consider universal is the need for a comprehensive programme that is focused on causes and not solely on treating the symptom, namely the roaming dog population. 1. Although in a different format and using more recent examples, this document does share many of the concepts, particularly with regards to initial assessment, included in the WHO/WSPA (1990) Guidelines for Dog Population Management. H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M 03 Page 40

42 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Introduction All the organisations within the ICAM Coalition seek to improve animal welfare as a common purpose, and as a priority. Dog population management is an area of concern for all of us due to the welfare issues involved. Roaming dogs may encounter a range of welfare problems, including: malnutrition disease injury through traffic accidents injury through fighting abusive treatment. Attempts to control the population may also present significant welfare problems, including: inhumane methods of killing such as strychnine poisoning, electrocution and drowning cruel methods of catching poorly equipped and managed holding facilities. Within any population of dogs there will be different categories of ownership. These are: owned with restricted movements owned and allowed to roam unowned. There will be welfare issues relating to both restricted and roaming dogs. However, for the purposes of this document, the aim of dog population management is defined as: To manage roaming dog populations and the risks these may present, including population size reduction when this is considered necessary. Whether reducing the size of a roaming dog population is considered necessary will, to some extent, be subjective. In each situation there will be some people willing to tolerate roaming dogs and others who will not. For example, some members of the public and government authorities are concerned with public health and safety problems associated with roaming dog populations, including: transmission of disease to humans (zoonoses) and other animals injury and fear caused by aggressive behaviour nuisance through noise and fouling livestock predation causing of road traffic accidents. On the other hand, in some countries roaming dogs may be valued, owned animals that are allowed to roam unrestricted by the local community. A reduction in their numbers may be neither necessary nor wanted, but improving the welfare and health of the population and reducing zoonotic risks may still be recognised as beneficial and desirable. A roaming dog can be either owned or unowned. It is the responsible ownership of a dog that prevents it being considered a problem by other members of the community. This document considers management options that address both categories (owned and unowned) of dog. Owned roaming dog in Portugal. RSPA International 04 Page 41

43 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Terminology From a population management perspective, we feel it is most useful to characterise the dogs first in terms of their behaviour or location (in other words, whether they are confined or roaming) and then by their ownership status. This is illustrated in Figure 1, below. Terms appearing in the diagram are explained under Definitions. Figure 1: Sub-populations of the total dog population The diagram shows the sub-populations into which the total dog population can be partitioned. Note that these categories are fluid and dogs may move between categories, as indicated by the arrows. TOTAL DOG POPULATION CONFINED/CONTROLLED OWNED DOGS ROAMING DOGS IN BREEDING/COMMERCIAL SUPPLY CHAIN LOST REUNITED ABANDONMENT RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP REHOMING Owned dogs - lost Owned dogs - abandoned Owned dogs - roaming Unowned dogs born roaming Definitions Roaming dog One that is not currently under direct control or is not currently restricted by a physical barrier. This term is often used interchangeably with free-roaming, free-ranging or stray dog. Note that this term encompasses both owned and unowned roaming dogs and does not distinguish whether the dog has an owner or guardian ; indeed in many countries the majority of dogs that would be defined as roaming do have an owner but are allowed to roam on public property for all or part of the day. Owned dog For the purposes of this document, an owned dog is one that someone states is their property or claims some right over simply put, when enquiries are made about a dog someone will say: That s my dog. This does not necessarily mean it is a responsibly owned dog. Indeed ownership can range from: loose ownership in the form of irregular feeding of a dog that roams freely in the streets; to a dog kept as part of a commercial breeding facility; to a well cared for, legally registered and confined pet. In reality, what constitutes dog ownership is highly variable and fits along a spectrum of confinement, provision of resources such as food and shelter and the significance of companionship. Community dog There may also be situations where more than one individual claims ownership of an animal and these can be known as community dogs. Responsible animal ownership Fisherman and community dog in India. RSPCA International It is a principle of animal welfare that owners have a duty to provide sufficient and appropriate care for all their animals and their offspring. This duty of care requires owners to provide the resources (e.g. food, water, health care and social interaction) necessary for an individual dog to maintain an acceptable level of health and well-being in its environment the Five Freedoms 2 serve as a useful guide. Owners also have a duty to minimise the potential risk their dog may pose to the public or other animals. In some countries this is a legal requirement. 2. Freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury or disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; freedom from fear and distress. Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC): H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M Page 42 05

44 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Content structure This document follows the structure explained in Figure 2: A process overview, below. Figure 2: A process overview A. Initial data collection and assessment (page 07) What is the current size of the dog population and subpopulations within it? Where are the dogs coming from and why does this source exist? What welfare problems do the dogs face? What are the problems caused by the dogs (real or perceived) and what is currently being done to control these problems? Who is responsible for this control? What is currently being done to control the size of the population and why? Who is responsible? Who are the relevant stakeholders? E. Evaluate (page 19) A periodic process to re-assess the situation and strategy B. Influential factors in dog population management (pages 08 11) Consider and prioritise factors affecting population size: Human attitudes and behaviour Dog reproductive capacity Access to resources Education Legislation Registration and identification Sterilisation and contraception Planning for sustainability Aims, objectives and activities Setting standards for animal welfare Factors motivating animal control: Zoonotic disease Current roaming dog population C. Components of a comprehensive dog population management programme (pages ) D. Designing the intervention (pages 17 18) Holding facilities and rehoming centres Euthanasia Vaccination and treatment Controlling access to resources Identifying indicators that can be used to monitor and evaluate each stage of the programme E. Monitoring (page 19) A continuous process resulting in re-adjustment of implementation E. Implementation (page 19) Carry out activities Maintain minimum standards throughout 06 Page 43

45 DMC18/1160 Supplementary A. Initial data collection and assessment: Understand the problem you are facing Before embarking on a dog population management programme it is essential that the dynamics of the dog population are understood and measured objectively. This approach ensures the final management programme will be tailored to the characteristics of the local dog population, rather than using a single blanket intervention for all dogs or all situations. Assessing the local dog population The main questions to be explored through the assessment are as follows: 1. What is the current size of the dog population and the categories within it? This includes both owned and unowned, confined and roaming dogs, and where these overlap. 2. Where are the roaming dogs coming from? What are the sources of these dogs and why do these sources exist? Management strategies should aim to reduce the future unwanted roaming population by targeting the primary sources. 3. What are the main welfare issues faced by these dogs? 4. What is currently being done, both informally and officially, to control the dog population and why? a. Understanding what is already being done can allow current resources and control measures to be improved and built upon. This also helps ensure that any new interventions will not conflict with current measures but rather replace or complement them. b. Whose responsibility is it to control the roaming dog population? This usually falls within the remit of the agriculture (or sometimes health) department, with municipalities often responsible for carrying out activities locally. NGOs can provide effective elements of population management, but in order to do this they should be supported in partnership with, or led by, the responsible authority. It is also essential that any measures taken fit within the legal framework of the country. c. Pressure from the public can be very powerful and this is usually the why behind control attempts. It is necessary to listen to the concerns and opinions of the local community and local authority; addressing these will help ensure the sustainability of the project. The justification for wanting dog populations to be controlled will depend on opinions as to whether roaming dogs are unwanted, but be aware that these will be determined by both the person you are asking and the individual dogs concerned. Within each of these main questions are sub-questions and tools that can be used to address them. See Annex A for an exploration of the questions, but note that the sub-questions and tools described are neither an exhaustive nor prescriptive list, rather an attempt to highlight key areas of importance. It is essential that all relevant stakeholders are consulted during this process; representation should be sought from everyone who is affected by the dog population. As far as is possible, a participatory approach should also be used; not only should people be consulted, but their views taken into consideration and their input used to design and drive the future intervention. This will encourage buy-in from the stakeholders and will inevitably improve the success of the programme. Creating a multi-stakeholder committee Ideally, it will be the duty of the responsible government authority to bring together stakeholders for consultation. However, if they are unwilling or unable to do this, NGOs can create a working group themselves and feed back the findings to the relevant authorities. For further information on developing a consultative process see Annex B. The following is a list of possible stakeholders to be consulted. Those marked with a * are recommended as minimum requirements of the committee. Government * usually local, but central will also be relevant for policy and statutes. Will be the key stakeholder if the programme is national. Several departments are likely to be relevant, including agriculture/veterinary, health, environment (especially with regard to refuse collection), tourism, education and sanitation. (The government must be represented on the committee). Veterinary community * national governing body, veterinary professional association, private practitioner clusters and university veterinary department. NGO community * local, national and international organisations working in animal welfare, animal rights and human health. Animal sheltering, fostering and rehoming community * both government/municipality-run and private/ngo-run organisations. Academic communities with relevant experience e.g. animal behaviour, veterinary science, sociology, ecology and epidemiology. Legislators * departments responsible for both writing and enforcing legislation. Educators in schools and universities. Local media for education, publicity and local support. International bodies with relevant responsibilities World Health Organisation (WHO), World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and worldwide veterinary associations. Local community leaders/representatives * Local community both dog owners and non-owners. 07 H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M Page 44 07

46 DMC18/1160 Supplementary B. Influential factors in dog population management: Consider a range of factors that influence dog population welfare and size and decide which to prioritise Completion of the initial assessment will provide both data on and insights into the local situation. The next stage is to highlight which factors are the most important and so should be prioritised in the management programme; identifying these priority factors will ensure that resources are not spent on issues that have only a minor impact on the wider problem. In almost all situations more than one factor will be important, so an effective strategy will require a combination of interventions. The following is a list of factors that are frequently listed as priorities in dog population management. These are split into those that influence population size and those that influence or motivate people to attempt to control the population. However, others may be relevant in certain conditions and it is important to stay focused on what is appropriate for the target community and the causes of roaming dog populations, not just the effects. Factors influencing dog population size Human attitudes and behaviour Aim: To encourage responsible ownership. Human behaviour is likely to be the most powerful force behind dog population dynamics. The encouraging of responsible and rewarding human-animal interactions will lead to both an improvement in animal welfare and a reduction in many of the sources of roaming dogs. The owned dog population may be found to be a significant source of roaming dogs and may suffer from many preventable welfare problems, and human behaviour towards dogs will be the driving force behind these problems. Several issues need to be considered when exploring human attitudes and behaviour. a. Local beliefs and attitudes may affect human behaviour towards dogs. It may be possible to address these beliefs to change behavioural outcomes. For example, a belief that sterilisation will cause negative behavioural changes in dogs can be addressed through education and examples of sterilised dogs in the community, so encouraging owners to seek sterilisation for their dogs. d. Interventions to change human behaviour should be tailored carefully to your target audience as different methodologies will be required for different ages and cultures. It is important to understand the most effective ways of communicating to each target audience. e. Because human behaviour is such a key factor of success, it is important that owners are not only aware of interventions but fully understand and engage in all relevant aspects (see Case study 1). CASE STUDY 1 An example of human attitudes that could affect dog population management In China, IFAW and One Voice funded a MORI poll in 2004 which revealed that approximately 76 per cent of citizens considered neutering pet cats and dogs to be cruel. This highlighted the need for extensive education and discussion before starting any intervention involving reproduction control through sterilisation. In 2006, there was a similar situation in Zanzibar when WSPA and the local government introduced a sterilisation intervention. It started with low compliance, with few owners willing to bring their animals for sterilisation. However, over a period of months, the education programme, discussions with key community leaders and actual examples of healthy sterilised animals began to create a change in human attitudes, leading people to actively bring their animals to be sterilised. b. Keep messages about human behaviour consistent. The intervention should encourage responsible and rewarding human-animal interactions. For example, demonstrating respectful and careful handling of dogs will help to encourage empathetic and respectful attitudes in the local population. Do watch out for any elements of the intervention that could be seen to encourage irresponsible or careless behaviour. c. Religion and culture play an important role in peoples attitudes and beliefs. Engage religious representatives and community leaders early in the process, to explore how religious or cultural interpretation could hinder or support potential interventions. Local people watching surgical sterilsation through windows of mobile clinic on Zanzibar. WSPA 08 Page 45

47 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Reproductive capacity of population Aim: To balance out supply and demand so that the number and type of dogs produced will match the number and type wanted by the public. In order to reduce the size of an unwanted roaming dog population in a humane way it is often necessary to reduce the surplus population. This surplus may come from unowned, owned or deliberately bred dogs and all three categories need to be taken into account when controlling supply and demand. The following issues need to be considered. a. Reducing reproduction. Sterilisation can reduce the capacity for reproduction, but it is important to select the target population of dogs carefully. i. Dogs that are reproducing most successfully. To reduce the reproduction rate of the population most effectively it is important to assess which dogs are actually producing puppies and successfully supporting them to adulthood. Some studies of specific populations of dogs that were not receiving care directly from humans (e.g. were living off the resources provided by garbage tips only) have reported that the population size was maintained through continued immigration rather than successful breeding within the group. From this, it can be assumed that in many cases only those dogs receiving some level of care directly from humans will be able to reproduce successfully. From an animal welfare perspective, the suffering of puppies born to females of poor welfare status (should they manage to carry a litter to term) should be considered. In general, the mortality of puppies in unowned roaming dog populations is likely to be high. It must be noted, however, that dogs of poor welfare status at the time of prioritising could become healthy in the future and therefore able to reproduce successfully. ii. Dogs whose offspring are most likely to become roaming dogs. There may be specific populations of dogs whose offspring are most likely to be allowed to roam or be abandoned. This may relate to a lack of awareness and acceptance of responsible ownership, which can be a result of education, public and institutional attitudes and socio-economics. iii. Female dogs. It may be sensible to focus the main effort of the intervention on female dogs, as females are usually the limiting factor in reproductive capacity. It requires just a few entire (un-neutered) males to impregnate receptive females, so the sterilisation of even a sizable proportion of the male population may not lead to a reduction in the overall reproductive capacity of the population. Each sterilisation of a female, however, will individually contribute to a reduction in the overall reproductive capacity. iv. Male dogs. Machos. However, the sexual behaviour of entire male dogs may become problematic, especially when females that have not been sterilised are in oestrus. Adult males may not change their behaviour as significantly following castration as young males who have not yet developed their sexual behaviour. Hence young males may be considered the next priority group for sterilisation, followed by adult males. Note: Both male and female dogs can act as vectors for rabies, so if only females are being selected for sterilisation in a rabies-endemic area, males should at least be vaccinated. b. Reducing commercial supply i.e. dog breeding. A comprehensive strategy should also consider commercial sources of dogs, such as breeding farms or pet shops. Commercial breeding facilities may produce poorly socialised and unhealthy puppies, which make poor pets. Outlets, such as pet shops or markets, may also keep animals in poor conditions and sell them on without proper advice about care or responsibilities. The low quality of these dogs and the lack of understanding or realistic expectations of dog ownership will leave these dogs at high risk of abandonment. A combination of legislation and enforcement via inspections by trained enforcement agencies can be used to improve the conditions of these commercial facilities and hence the welfare of the animals involved. Outlets should also be required to provide proper advice about care and the responsibilities of dog ownership. Education can be used to ensure potential owners know the options available to them when acquiring a new pet, including rehoming centres. They should also know to expect a well-socialised and healthy puppy. Access to resources Aim: To reduce the access to resources that may be encouraging dogs to roam and to use manipulation of local resources to reduce the local roaming dog population. Dogs generally have access to resources (including food, water and shelter), which may be available directly from an owner within the confines of a household or provided on public property when roaming. The extent to which a dog relies on the resources available on public property for survival will depend on the level of care provided by its owner. Some owned dogs are encouraged to roam by the opportunity to access resources on public property but do not rely on these for survival, while other dogs have no owner or are offered no care by their owner and so are entirely reliant for their survival on resources accessed when roaming. Altering the access to resources on public property will have an impact on the roaming dog population by discouraging opportunistic roaming. However, it may also potentially reduce the survival of those that depend on these resources. H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M Page 46 09

48 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Several issues need to be considered when exploring this factor. a. The intervention of reducing access to resources should not be used alone. For those animals identified as being dependent on public property resources for survival, changes to the access to these resources (through measures such as improved rubbish collection) should be done in step with reducing this population or by making alternative provisions for those animals. b. Improving rubbish collection and disposal can reduce a point of interaction between people, especially children, and roaming dogs. c. In some situations, the main food source will be food provided directly by humans through deliberate feeding rather than refuse (indirect resource provisioning). The motivation for feeding will vary between geographical areas and between individuals and this must be understood and taken into consideration if attempting to influence human feeding behaviour, for example see point d, below. Education will play an important role in influencing this behaviour. Alternatively a reduction in the dog population may automatically lead to a reduction in resource provision as people will not feed dogs that do not exist. d. Altering access to resources in specific areas can be used to alter the spread of the dog population. For example, a public park that people want free of roaming dogs can be maintained by removing access to resources, such as using animal proof bins and educating people not to feed dogs in these areas. In some countries regulations exist that restrict areas where dogs can be exercised or can roam freely. These regulations are enforced by environmental and communal officers. Factors motivating people to control dog populations Zoonotic diseases (diseases that can be transmitted from non-human animals to humans) Aim: To reduce the risk the dog population presents to human health and the health of other animals. Zoonotic diseases are often the primary cause for concern with regard to roaming dog populations, particularly with local and central government who have a responsibility for public health. Because rabies is a fatal disease, with dogs being the most common vector for transmission to humans, rabies control is often a major motive for dog population management. Several issues need to be considered when exploring this factor. a. The importance of zoonotic control should not be played down to relevant stakeholders, such as public health officials. It is important to explore together ways that effective zoonotic control can be achieved while remaining neutral, or even positive, towards animal welfare. b. Zoonoses are a concern for the general public and people may at times behave cruelly towards dogs out of fear of zoonotic diseases such as rabies. Controlling zoonoses and providing tangible evidence of this control (e.g. fitting red collars to indicate recent vaccination) to the public may help to increase confidence and reduce aggressive behaviour towards these dogs. c. In some situations it may be advisable to introduce improved zoonotic control to restore public confidence first and then follow with other elements of dog population management, such as sterilisation or improved health care. Vida Digna Roaming dogs feeding from rubbish in Peru. 10 Page 47

49 DMC18/1160 Supplementary However, a comprehensive programme of population management including simultaneous zoonotic control is the ideal option. d. The risk of zoonotic disease transmission to those involved in any population management intervention must be considered. For example, dogs that succumb to rabies can excrete the virus in their saliva up to two weeks before symptoms appear. All personnel working in close proximity to dogs should be provided with adequate training and equipment and given appropriate prophylactic (preventative) medication. Current roaming dog population Aim: To reduce the risks that the current roaming dog population presents to the community and to avoid poor welfare of the current roaming population. The current roaming dog population can lead to human-animal conflicts (in addition to zoonotic diseases) and can be a motivating and visible animal welfare problem. In many situations the current population of roaming dogs will need to be addressed for reasons of public pressure, public health and the welfare of the animals themselves. The best method of addressing this population will depend very much on the local human community and the dog population itself. Several issues need to be considered when exploring this factor. a. It is important to identify exactly where and why humananimal conflict occurs. It may actually be possible to resolve some of the conflict through methods other than those aimed at population reduction, such as bite prevention education or establishment of dog-free zones in potential conflict areas. b. Human-animal conflict and welfare issues are often blamed on an unowned roaming dog population, when in reality many of these roaming dogs may actually be owned or abandoned by previous owners. Improving responsible animal ownership and introducing registration and identification of dogs are all methods of tackling this issue. Further details are provided in Section C. c. There may be rehoming potential in the local community that could provide unowned roaming dogs with responsible ownership. To administer this, a rehoming centre or fostering system would be needed, although these need careful management if they are not to cause welfare concerns of their own. Rehoming centres can be expensive and time consuming to run, so it is best to explore creative alternatives before commiting to a physical centre. See Section C for a more detailed discussion of this subject. d. In some cases there will be no, or little, local rehoming potential. In this situation the welfare of the dogs must be considered. In many cases, the poor welfare of these dogs and public pressure will mean these animals need to be removed. If they are sick, injured or have significant behavioural problems, such as aggression, euthanasia may be the best option. If no homes are available, euthanasia may be preferable to long-term kennelling for reasons of animal welfare, as dogs are difficult and expensive to kennel in the long term without significant suffering. e. If the welfare of these dogs is generally good and the local human community tolerates them, it may be possible to introduce a combination of measures to control them in situ, including: vaccinating the population to ensure it does not carry rabies; using an ambulance to collect individuals that are injured, ill or aggressive for humane euthanasia; maintaining dog-free zones via rubbish collection and good fencing. These measures should be used in conjunction with others designed to tackle the source of this population. Further details are provided in Section C. f. The mass killing of dogs through inhumane methods is unfortunately often used as an attempt to control the population. There are many reasons why this should not be done. Killing roaming dogs does not address the source of the animals and so will have to be repeated indefinitely. This method often meets resistance both within the local area and outside, as inhumane treatment of a sentient animal will be seen as ethically questionable, especially when humane alternatives exist. If the inhumane methods used are also indiscriminate, such as poison baits, there will also be a risk to non-target species, pet animals and even humans. There is no evidence to suggest that killing reduces rabies incidence (see Case study 2) and may actually discourage dog owners from engaging in rabies prevention programmes when these are run by authorities that are known to cull indiscriminately. It has been suggested that in some cases mass killing may lead to redistribution of the surviving animals into newly vacant territories, which may actually increase the rabies risk through increased movement. It is also hypothesised that in a situation where reproduction is limited by access to resources, a sudden reduction in animals through mass killing may allow greater access to resources for the remaining animals, and potentially their reproductive success and survival would increase enabling them to quickly replace the culled animals. However, to date we are not aware of data that demonstrate these effects. CASE STUDY 2 An example of the ineffectiveness of mass killing for rabies control Flores is an isolated Indonesian island which had been rabies-free until a canine rabies outbreak resulted in at least 113 human deaths. The outbreak began after three dogs were imported from rabies-endemic Sulawesi in September Local authorities responded with a mass killing of dogs, starting in early Approximately 70 per cent of the dogs in the district where rabies had been introduced were killed during that year, yet canine rabies still existed on Flores at the time the study was published (June 2004). From Windiyaningsih et al (2004). The Rabies Epidemic on Flores Island, Indonesia ( ). Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 87(11), 1-5. H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M Page 48 11

50 DMC18/1160 Supplementary C. Components of a comprehensive dog population management programme: Select the solutions most appropriate to your situation An effective dog population management programme needs a comprehensive approach. Ideally, the overall programme should be coordinated by the local authority responsible for dog population management. NGOs should work with the authority to identify the areas in which they can support the programme and make most difference. All activities should be selected based on the priorities identified in the initial needs assessment. This section outlines a range of components that might form part of a comprehensive dog population control programme. Education In the long term, education is one of the most important elements of a comprehensive approach to management, as human behaviour is an extremely influential factor in dog population dynamics (see Section B). In general, education needs to encourage a greater responsibility among dog owners for population management and the care and welfare of individual animals. However, there may be key specific education messages that are important to highlight at different stages of the programme, for example: bite prevention; selection and care of dogs; realistic expectations of dog ownership; advertising the importance of, and access to, preventative treatments; and knowledge of normal and abnormal canine behaviour. Several issues need to be considered when using this component. a. Education initiatives should be developed in coordination with the local education authorities and carried out by trained professionals. All stakeholders can advise on content and provide impetus for programmes but delivery should be carried out with expert support. b. It is important to engage all potential sources of education on dogs to ensure that messages are kept consistent. Ideally this should include animal welfare groups, the veterinary profession, schools, enforcement bodies and the media (including animal-focused media groups). It may be necessary for one particular body to take on a coordinating role. c. Veterinarians and veterinary students may also require focused educational efforts in the area of population management, including: the rationale behind or justification for population management their role in related public health issues methods of reproductive control key messages on responsible ownership for clients euthanasia methods how they can become involved with and benefit from proactive population management programmes that encourage responsible care of dogs, including regular vet care. d. Educational messages can be communicated in many ways, including: formal seminars and structured lessons in schools leaflets and brochures provided to targeted audiences awareness raising in the general public through the press, billboards, radio and TV directly engaging people in discussions as part of community-based programmes (see Case study 3). e. It can take time for the impact of education on dog population management to become evident, so methods of monitoring and evaluating its impact need to incorporate both short-term and long-term indicators. The impact can be considered on three levels: the acquisition of knowledge and skills; changes in attitudes; resultant behaviour change. CASE STUDY 3 An example of an education programme Following 2004 s tsunami, The Blue Paw Trust ran an education programme alongside a mobile veterinary clinic on the south and east coasts of Sri Lanka. This involved the distribution of leaflets on dog and cat care, talks at community centres and local schools, and discussions between vet-team members and the public at the clinic site. The latter also involved introducing animal owners to their local vet, who attended the clinics to support the programme and become familiar with surgical sterilisation techniques. These education initiatives were planned and designed with input from schools and local authorities (public health inspectors) and run in coordination with other local welfare groups. Legislation It is essential that the dog population management programme fits within legislative guidelines and is preferably supported by them. Legislation is important for the sustainability of the programme and can be used to ensure dog population management is carried out humanely. Relevant legislation can be found at both central and local government level and is sometimes scattered within several different statutes, laws or acts. Separate policy documents may also be relevant and can impact on the emphasis or method of legislative enforcement. Changes to legislation can be a long and bureaucratic process. 12 Page 49

51 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Several issues need to be considered when using this component. a. There is a balance to be struck between clear legislation and legislation that is so restrictive it does not allow for evolution in management practices over time. b. Time should be taken to draft new legislation carefully, drawing from the experiences of other countries and relevant professionals. An inclusive process with all relevant stakeholders participating should be used, including appraisal exercises where input is actively sought and incorporated from several sources. c. Changes to legislation are difficult to achieve so it is important that submitted drafts are accurate and realistic. The end product should deliver laws that are: holistic; considered suitable and reasonable by the community; engage the authorities with their responsibilities; achieve the desired impact for animal welfare; sustainable. d. Sufficient time should be allowed for any changes to legislation to be introduced. Guidance notes should be provided in advance to help with interpretation. e. Legislation will be a paper exercise unless it is enacted uniformly and enforced effectively. Effective enactment will usually require the majority of effort to be spent on education and incentives and the minority to be spent on carrying out punitive enforcement measures. Education about legislation has to be targeted at all levels, from law enforcement bodies (such as lawyers, police and animal welfare inspectors) to relevant professionals (such as veterinarians and shelter managers) and dog owners. Successful enforcement has been achieved in some countries through the use of animal welfare inspectors (also referred to as wardens or animal control officers). These officials are trained and resourced to provide education, handle animals when required and enforce legislation through advice, warnings, cautions and eventual prosecutions. Registration and identification The most effective way of clearly connecting an owner with his or her animal is to use registration and identification together. This should encourage a sense of responsibility in the owner as the animal becomes identifiable as his/her own. Registration/identification is an important tool for reuniting lost animals with owners and can be a strong foundation for enforcement of legislation (including abandonment legislation and mandatory regular rabies vaccinations). Several issues need to be considered when using this component. a. There are several methods of animal identification available, and these can be used either separately or in combination. They differ in three important ways: permanence; visibility; and whether an animal has to be anaesthetised when they are applied. Microchips, tattoos and collars/tags are the three most common methods; the most suitable will depend partly on local conditions and partly on the reasons identification is being used. b. If permanent identification of a large population is required, the microchip currently offers the best option since the number of permutations of digits in the code is sufficient to identify all dogs, while human errors (transposing numbers and incorrect reading of the numbers) are less likely as a digital scanner is used to read the chip. Microchipping also has the advantage of being a global system, so animals moving from one area (or country) to another can continue to be identified (see Case study 4). Before instituting a microchip system, it is advisable to check that the chips and readers used conform to ISO standards. c. It is important that registration and identification information is stored on a central database (or that separate databases are linked in some way), which is accessible to all relevant people (e.g. the veterinary profession, police, dog wardens and municipal pounds). It may require the support of central government to ensure a single unified system is used. d. Mandatory registration and identification can help the practical problems faced by shelters. When a dog brought to a shelter is identified, it can be returned to its owner without delay (avoiding welfare compromise for the dog and reducing stress to the owner). If not identified, it is by definition unowned so the shelter can implement its policies (whether rehoming or euthanasia) without the delay of waiting for an owner to come forward. Both scenarios will free up valuable kennel space, which will potentially increase capacity. CASE STUDY 4 An example of a registration and identification system in Estonia Tallinn city government is the first to adopt a mandatory registration and identification system for dogs in Estonia. The system was set up in August 2006 as a pilot scheme, when the city of Tallinn commissioned a commercial company to develop a database to record and identify animals and their owners. Municipal regulations stipulate that all dogs are to be permanently identified by a microchip that has been implanted by a vet. The owners and their animals details are recorded onto a database, which can be accessed by authorised personnel. The register was designed to be universal, allowing the same system to be adopted across Estonia. As well as identifying animals, the system has been designed to record animal health information such as rabies vaccinations. It is anticipated that the system will eventually be used to issue rabies vaccination recalls to owners when their dogs are due for annual inoculations, as rabies vaccination is a mandatory requirement in Estonia. H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M Page 50 13

52 DMC18/1160 Supplementary e. Registration fees can be charged (a one off fee or payment each year) in order to provide funds for other areas of the management programme. Although care needs to be taken to balance potential income against enforcement, if fees are too high owners may try to avoid registration. Differential fee scales can be used as an incentive for sterilisation, encouraging owners to keep only a small number of animals and discouraging breeding of dogs. f. Licensing may be used when certain criteria have to be fulfilled prior to dog ownership, for example when people wish to breed dogs or own regulated dog breeds ( dangerous dogs). It could also be used to encourage responsible ownership by requesting that people complete a certificate in dog ownership before they are granted a licence to own a dog. Sterilisation and contraception The control of reproduction through permanent sterilisation or temporary contraception can be achieved through three main methods. a. Surgical: The removal of reproductive organs under general anaesthetic ensures permanent sterilisation and can significantly reduce sexual behaviour (especially if performed early in an animal s development). Surgical techniques must be carried out correctly. A good standard of asepsis (the practice of reducing or eliminating the risk of bacterial contamination) and pain management must be maintained throughout. This can only be assessed by adequate post-operative monitoring during the whole recovery period. Surgery may be costly initially but is a lifelong solution and hence may be more cost efficient over time. It requires trained veterinarians, an infrastructure and equipment. b. Chemical sterilisation and contraception: These methods are still quite limited by the cost, the fact that they may need to be repeated and by the welfare problems associated with certain chemicals. Currently, no methods of chemical sterilisation or contraception are guaranteed to be effective or without risk when used on roaming unmonitored dogs. However, this is an active area of research and effective and suitable chemical sterilants for mass reproductive control are expected in the future. Most chemicals require trained veterinarians for clinical examination of individuals to assess their reproductive status prior to the application and administration of injections at regular intervals without interruption, which is not possible for most dog management programmes. Chemical sterilants and contraception should be used according to manufacturers instructions. They may or may not have an impact on sexual behaviours. c. Physical contraception through the isolation of females in oestrus from entire males: Owners can be educated to recognise the signs of a female dog coming into oestrus and can plan to ensure the female is isolated from entire males during this period. Attention must be paid to the welfare of both the female and males when planning how to isolate the female. Sexual behaviour can become problematic as males will try to gain access to females, however, isolation requires minimal cost to achieve and does not require a trained veterinary surgeon. When using tools for sterilisation and contraception it is important to consider their sustainability dog population management is a permanent challenge so it is vital that sustainability is considered throughout the design of the intervention. Providing free or low-cost services with no explanation of the full costs may give dog owners an unrealistic expectation of the true cost of veterinary care. A local veterinary infrastructure is a requirement for the general health and welfare of owned animals, so if a local, private veterinary capacity could provide sterilisation services it is advisable to work to build up and incorporate this capacity rather than to exclude and alienate it. This may require the support of a growing market for dog sterilisation services in the local community by advocating the benefits of sterilisation and helping to support part of the costs, as well as supporting the development of the service itself through training (see Case study 5). CASE STUDY 5 An example of a programme to develop sustainable population management involving local stakeholders An in-depth assessment of the local dog population, which combined formal household surveys and dog counts with local knowledge, provided data on the sources of stray dogs in Dominica and hence perception of the problem. As a result, the city council acknowledged its responsibility to humanely and effectively enforce the municipal dog control by-laws. It then asked IFAW to complement its municipal programme through the provision of primary veterinary health care (including sterilisation) and education, through a targeted door-to door community outreach program based on the outcomes of the assessment. The aim was to limit the number of dogs roaming at source, as well as to address other welfare issues affecting owned dogs, such as neglect, inappropriate confinement and poor health. The ethos of the project was community participation and leadership and so local vets were an integral part of the project. Following training programmes both in Dominica and overseas, US- and UK-based IFAW staff provided long distance support to key local staff and stakeholders as well as written veterinary protocols suitable for local conditions but acceptable to international standards. Through this process the local community, veterinary profession and council will be able to take on all elements of this project in the long term. For a discussion of the results of the community-based questionnaire see Davis et al (2007), Preliminary Observations on the Characteristics of the Owned Dog Population in Roseau, Dominica. JAAWS, 10(2), Page 51

53 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Holding facilities and rehoming centres Building a shelter will not on its own solve a roaming dog problem in the long term. In fact it may make it worse, as it provides an easy route for pet owners to dispose of their animals rather than thinking about providing for them. In addition, rehoming centres can be very expensive and time consuming to run, hence creative alternatives to centres should be explored prior to a commitment to build one. A fostering system, for example, might be more effective, cost efficient and welfare friendly for the animals (see Case study 6). Rather than providing a rehoming centre, which treats the symptoms of abandonment and not the causes, effort should be focused as a priority on improving responsible ownership as a method of reducing abandonment. CASE STUDY 6 An example of an alternative to rehoming centres In an east Asian city with one of the greatest human population densities in the world, a large stray dog population and limited fundraising capacity, many shelters quickly become overwhelmed. In many instances, lack of financial resources and constant demand lead to a dramatic fall in standards of care, resulting in significant animal suffering and distress for the staff. As an alternative, a new organisation focused on creating a foster network of dedicated volunteers to take abandoned dogs and cats into their homes temporarily. For its part, the organisation agreed to support the animals, paying for all medical bills, vaccinations and neutering, until longterm homes were found. In the first year the organisation built up a network of more than 40 foster homes with the goal of reaching 100 within the second year. The animals are rehomed via the internet and the network has the potential to house a far greater number of animals than a shelter ever could. The animals are all homed in appropriate conditions and the scheme has far lower overheads and administrative costs than a shelter. The new organisation has become a success in a city where many similar projects have failed. Adapted from Guidelines for the design and management of animal shelters, RSPCA International, If centres for the statutory holding of collected roaming animals and the observation of suspect rabid cases already exist, for example municipally-run and/or funded holding facilities, it may be more cost efficient to improve and expand these existing facilities than to build new ones. Several issues need to be considered when using this component. a. Policies will need to be written to cover several issues of importance, including sterilisation, rehoming, capacity (how many animals per kennel and in total and what will be done once the capacity is reached) and euthanasia. These should take into account the welfare of individual animals, the cost implications, the aims and objectives of the facility/centre and the impact of the facility/centre on the long-term dog population management issue, including responsible animal ownership. As this is an issue where emotional factors may come into play it is preferable for the policies to be agreed by all staff at the outset. All new staff must be clear about the policies and have the rationale behind them clearly explained. Example 1: A clear policy and procedure should be agreed for assessing the health and behaviour of individual dogs, bearing in mind the typical homes that will be available and what a new home can realistically be expected to provide. Inappropriate rehoming can lead to distrust by the public and mean bad public relations for adoption in general. Example 2: Following on from Example 1, some dogs will not be suitable for rehoming based on their health and/or behaviour 3 and there may not be enough homes available for those that would be suitable. It is extremely difficult to maintain a good state of welfare for dogs in long-term kennelling. In this situation, euthanasia should be considered both for the sake of the individual animal and other dogs that could be offered the opportunity to find a new home. To support decision making, euthanasia policies should be clear and transparent for all staff involved. b. Protocols should be designed for each stage of the process, from quarantine on arrival to daily routines such as cleaning, feeding and exercise to record keeping and rehoming. c. The design of the centre should take into account the welfare needs of the animals, including both physiological and psychological needs. The site selection should consider public access, physical characteristics, services (such as drainage and water sources), potential noise disturbance, planning permission and future expansion. d. Finances for rehoming centres are extremely important as centres are hard to close at short notice. Both capital expenditure and running costs should be considered. It is recommended that both the capital outlay and running costs for one year should be raised before commitment to a centre is made. For further information refer to: Guidelines for the design and management of animal shelters, RSPCA International, E.g. See definitions provided by the Asilomar Accords: H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M Page 52 15

54 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Euthanasia When running holding facilities and rehoming centres or networks, euthanasia will be required for animals that are suffering from an incurable illness, injury or behavioural problem that prevents them being rehomed, or are not coping well enough with the facilities to maintain a reasonable level of welfare. Ultimately, a successful population management programme should create a situation where these are the only occasions when euthanasia is required and all healthy animals can be found a good home. In reality, however, most countries will not be able to achieve this situation immediately but will need to work towards it, accepting that some healthy animals will be euthanased as not enough homes exist that can provide a good level of welfare. Euthanasia deals with only the symptoms and not the causes of population problems. It will not lead to population management and must not be relied upon as a sole response. Whenever euthanasia is used, it must employ humane methods that ensure the animal moves into unconsciousness and then death without suffering. Vaccination and parasite control Preventative veterinary treatments can be provided to protect the health and welfare of animals and to reduce the problem of zoonotic diseases. Rabies vaccinations are usually the priority issue, but several other diseases can also be vaccinated against, alongside internal and external parasite control through appropriate medication. These treatments should be provided in conjunction with education about responsible ownership, sterilisation or contraception and registration and/or identification. The need for vaccination and parasite control is often well understood by animal owners, and so offering access to these services may be the easiest way to entice owners into conversations or agreements about the other components discussed in this section. Several issues need to be considered when using this component. a. Regular vaccination (especially if covering diseases in addition to rabies) and parasite control is likely to improve the health status of individual dogs. Females that were not previously reproductively successful may become healthy enough to breed. This does mean that the issue of increased reproduction needs to be considered and mitigated as required. b. As with sterilisation and contraception, preventative treatments can be used to encourage owners to see the value of general veterinary treatment and other population management tools (such as registration and identification), which are required for the long-term welfare of animals, so it is worth exploring how to involve the local veterinary infrastructure in providing preventative treatments. The provision of preventative treatments for free should be done with care and according to the local economic situation, as there is a risk of devaluing general veterinary services if treatment is provided without cost or understanding of the extent of cost subsidies. Fitting a red identification collar to a dog receiving rabies vaccination and parasite treatment in Sri Lanka. c. Preventative treatments will need to be provided regularly if they are to be effective, hence the ease of access to treatments should be considered. d. Treatments can be provided via camps (temporary, highvolume treatment sites), which can be very effective at drawing owners attention to the importance of preventative treatments and other population management tools. However, the risk of aggressive interactions and disease transmission between the large number of dogs that will attend needs to be mitigated by organising access and exits carefully, using a sterilised needle for each dog, and quarantining sick animals. Such camps will require adequate advertising beforehand. There is also a limit to the distance that the general public will travel for such a service, so thought must be given to the number of camps that would be necessary for the desired coverage, and the associated logistics. e. Encouraging regular preventative treatments allows for the diagnosis and treatment of any existing conditions. Controlling access to resources Dogs are motivated to roam in public places where there is access to resources such as food. In order to restrict roaming, especially in specific areas where dogs are not tolerated (e.g. schools and public parks), access to these resources needs to be restricted. This should be done carefully and in conjunction with measures to reduce the roaming dog population, in order to avoid dogs starving when food sources are removed or moving to different areas to find new food sources. This can be achieved in a number of ways: a. the regular removal of garbage from homes and public bins b. the fencing-in of garbage collection and disposal sites c. the control of offal and carcass disposal d. the use of animal-proof bins, such as those with heavy lids, or positioning them out of a dog s reach e. education or enforcement measures to stop people littering (and hence feeding dogs accidentally), and to stop people purposely feeding dogs in certain areas. WSPA/ BLUE PAW TRUST 16 Page 53

55 . DMC18/1160 Supplementary D. Designing the intervention: Planning, agreeing targets and setting standards Once the assessment is complete, the priorities for the programme have been decided and approaches for tackling these priority issues have been explored, it is necessary to design and document the full programme plan. Planning for sustainability Dog population management programmes often require high levels of resources over a long period of time. These include human resources, infrastructure and finances. It is important to consider the following factors. a. Responsibility: Ideally resource requirements will be built into the budget of the responsible authority. Government bodies are most likely to be able to achieve sustainability through government funding. NGOs considering taking on responsibility for aspects of dog population management should ensure that they will be fully supported and resourced, whether by the authorities or from other sources, before undertaking such responsibilities. They should also consider carefully that their investment will need to be long term and this commitment may challenge their capacity to take on other work. b. Owner involvement: An intervention designed to have an impact on owner responsibility could lead to the sustainability of elements of the project, as well as permanent positive behaviour change. For example, sterilisation programmes could become sustainable if owners are encouraged to pay for this service, while at the same time the veterinary profession is supported so that it can provide this at an accessible price. c. Registration: A registration system with a small fee for dog ownership can provide funding for other components of the wider programme. However, the size of this fee needs to be carefully controlled as large fees will lead to poor registration rates. Charging a fee may not be appropriate in all countries. d. Fundraising: The ability to fundraise locally will depend on several factors, including the culture of charitable giving and the status of dogs in the local community. Local people, businesses, trusts and dog-related industries (pharmaceutical, pet food and pet insurance) may all be interested in supporting dog management programmes, either financially or through providing resources (such as food or medicines). International grant-making bodies may also provide funding for specific project costs, but are unlikely to support long-term running costs. Again, the sustainability of each of these sources of funds and/or resources must be considered. e. Human resources: There may be people willing to provide support through unpaid human resources, sometimes termed in-kind or pro bono donations. Several professions carry out pro bono work for the benefit of NGOs, such as marketing, accounting and management firms. The veterinary profession is an important human resource, not just for surgical and medical skills but also for vets ability to influence owner behaviour. Qualified vets may be willing to provide some regular services for free or at a low cost. Student vets may also be willing to help out as part of their training and this can become a formal part of their course, although supervision will need to be provided. Volunteer vets and vet nurses from overseas may also be a valuable source of support, although there is the potential for them to be considered a threat by local vets if they are seen to be replacing their services. The sustainability of this resource is also difficult as travel costs may be high. It may be preferable to utilise these volunteer vets to support the growth and skills of the local veterinary profession. f. Sustainability: A plan of how the programme will be sustained in the long run should be drawn up at the outset; humane dog population management has a beginning but no end, as it requires ongoing activity to maintain the dog population in the desired state. Including and building upon local capacity will support sustainability, as will the development of responsible animal ownership as individual dog owners begin to support population management activities. Aims, objectives and activities The programme plan should include clear and agreed aims and objectives. It is also important at this stage to describe indicators that could be used to assess progress at each stage of the programme. The indicators will be used to monitor and evaluate the success of the programme (see Section E) and it is important to consider them at the outset as baselines are likely to be required. If a number of organisations are involved in dog population management, it may be relevant to draw up agreements so each party is aware of the overarching aim and their role within the programme. These plans should also be communicated to the end users, such as dog owners and stakeholders that will be affected by the programme even if they are not responsible for the activities themselves (this may include certain authorities). See Case study 7, overleaf, for an example of dog population management design. Setting standards for animal welfare The aim of maintaining the best practicable level of animal welfare should be clearly stated by the programme s standards. To ensure agreement and understanding, the standards are best developed by a team of stakeholders. Decisions regarding the fate of individual animals should be made on the basis of both their individual long-term welfare and that of the local dog population. There should also be a procedure for regular monitoring to ensure these standards are being upheld, as well as regular reviews of the standards themselves. H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M Page 54 17

56 DMC18/1160 Supplementary The following are common areas of dog management programmes that may require minimum standards to be applied: a. surgery, including aseptic techniques, anaesthetics and drug regimes (e.g. analgesia) b. handling and transporting of dogs c. housing and husbandry of dogs d. rehoming procedures e. euthanasia when euthanasia should be used and how it should be carried out f. record keeping and regular analysis of data although not directly affecting animal welfare, good recording keeping that covers the incidence of disease or injury can help identify parts of the programme that may be compromising welfare. For example, an usually high incidence of post-operative complications at certain times may indicate the need for refresher training for certain veterinary staff or a change in post-operative care. Surgery using aseptic techniques, Thailand. RAY BUTCHER/PHUKET ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY CASE STUDY 7 An example of steps for designing interventions A. Understand the situation A questionnaire was conducted in Municipality X, which was reported to have the highest number of complaints about roaming dogs. The questionnaire answers showed that 50 per cent of the people who owned female dogs reported they have too many puppies to deal with and that finding homes is a problem. They also reported 45 per cent of the puppies as lost. The level of sterilisation in the female dog population was found to be just three per cent. Owners reported a lack of confidence in local vets ability and a worry that their dogs personalities would change as a result of sterilisation. B. Prioritise the relevant factors The priority factor here is dog reproduction there is a surplus of unwanted puppies in the owned population, a need to increase sterilisation levels in owned dogs, and a need to address the vets ability and the misunderstanding of the impact of sterilisation on dog behaviour. C. Components of a comprehensive programme The components are: surgical sterilisation through local veterinary infrastructure; the education of both vets in surgery and local dog owners on the importance of sterilisation. D. Design the intervention From this, an aim was written: to reduce the number of unwanted and roaming dogs susceptible to disease and injury on the streets of Municipality X. In order to achieve this aim, several objectives were written, one of which was to increase sterilisation of owned female dogs from three per cent to 50 per cent in two years. Fifty per cent was chosen as a target because 50 per cent of the owners reported a problem with excess puppies. Two years was chosen both because of practical resources (clinic time and funding) and to allow time for the impact of the programme to become evident. This objective will involve activities such as: training to improve surgical sterilisation skills in four local vets, which is paired with two incentives: a voucher system allowing vets to offer low-cost sterilisation services subsidised by a local NGO and a simple marketing plan for the clinic around the subject of low-cost sterilisation an education programme, using posters and the local community network focused on the local religious leader, which explains the benefits of sterilisation to dog owners with regards to health and behaviour. 18 Page 55

57 . DMC18/1160 Supplementary E. Implementation, monitoring and evaluation: check the programme is achieving its goals Implementation This should be straightforward if priorities have been chosen sensibly and the design stage carried out in detail. This stage may require a phased approach, using pilot areas which are monitored carefully to ensure any problems are tackled before the full programme is launched. The initial stages should not be rushed into. There will be teething problems, and frequent updates will be required between key stakeholders to monitor closely and improve progress in the early phases. Monitoring and evaluation Once the programme is underway it will be necessary to regularly monitor progress and evaluate effectiveness. This is necessary: a. to help improve performance, by highlighting both problems and successful elements of interventions b. for accountability, to demonstrate to donors, supporters and people at the receiving end of the intervention that the programme is achieving its aims. Monitoring is a continuous process that aims to check the programme is going to plan and allows for regular adjustments. Evaluation is a periodic assessment, usually carried out at particular milestones to check the programme is having the desired and stated impact. Evaluation should also be used as the basis for decisions regarding future investment and programme continuation. Both procedures involve the measurement of indicators selected at the design stage because they reflect important components of the programme at different stages (see Case study 8 for an example). Monitoring and evaluation should be an important part of a programme but not overly time consuming or expensive. Choosing the right list of indicators, with regard to their ability to reflect the changes that need to be measured and can be measured with a degree of accuracy, will be key to the success of this stage. In order to choose these indicators it is essential to have a clear plan of what the programme is setting out to achieve and why, and how the intervention will accomplish this. Ideally monitoring and evaluation will be approached in a participatory manner where all relevant stakeholders are consulted and involved in making recommendations. It is also important to remain open minded and positive during this process, as things may change contrary to expectations. The exposure of problems or failures should be seen as opportunities to improve the programme, rather than mistakes requiring justification. The concept of monitoring and evaluation is not complex, but there are many decisions to be made regarding what to measure, how this is to be done and how the results should be analysed and used. These issues and others are discussed in much more detail in other texts, for example go to: CASE STUDY 8 Project matrix (truncated project logframe only one output listed and no assumptions) showing suggested indicators for each stage of the project initially introduced in Case study 7 HIERARCHY OF OBJECTIVES INDICATOR MEANS OF VERIFICATION A measurement, number, fact, How you will measure the opinion or perception that reflects indicator a specific condition or situation IMPACT/GOAL Reduction/change in % decrease in number of roaming Biannual population survey (direct Reflects the change unwanted and roaming puppies and lactating female dogs counts in sample of 500m 2 created by the project dogs in Municipality X in Municipality X over 2 years blocks) OUTCOME/PURPOSE Improved community % of sterilised females increases Annual household questionnaire Reflects the effect of ability to control to 50% in 2 years the project reproductive capacity of their dogs % increase in community Community focus group acceptance of dog sterilisation discussions OUTPUT 1 4 low-cost sterilisation Number of dogs sterilised and Participating clinics records Reflects the effort put in schemes in Municipality X treated per month by the project ACTIVITIES Training for 4 local Number of clinics that qualify Clinic agreements Reflects what the project vets and sign up to the scheme will actually do 1.2 Develop voucher system 1.3 Marketing of low cost service H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M Page 56 19

58 . DMC18/1160 Supplementary ANNEX A: Tools to assess dog population management needs This annex aims to explore the overarching questions posed in Section A. Under each heading is a series of sub-questions paired with suggestions for tools that could be used to investigate the answers. These are not meant to provide an exhaustive or prescriptive list, but rather encourage exploration into the issue. 1. To establish an estimate of the size of the dog population and its categories SUB QUESTIONS SUGGESTIONS FOR TOOLS/METHODS How many dogs are currently in the categories of roaming and confined? Note that dogs that are roaming will be both unowned and owned roaming dogs. A survey of the roaming dog population paired with a questionnaire for local dog owners asking for the number of dogs that would normally roam at the time the street survey was conducted. Note that questionnaires require experience to design in order to obtain truthful and relevant data. 2. To understand where roaming dogs are coming from. In other words, what are the sources of these dogs and why do these sources exist? SUB QUESTIONS SUGGESTIONS FOR TOOLS/METHODS How is the roaming dog population changing over time and how is it maintained? Is the unowned dog population itself capable of successful reproduction? Can unowned dogs raise puppies to adulthood? Observe the number of dogs in each age class (puppy, juvenile and adult) of the roaming dog population over time. Observe litters of puppies during the breeding season from both roaming owned and unowned populations to see how many survive in the two populations. Are unwanted owned dogs abandoned in the street to become part of the roaming population? Are owned dogs allowed to roam freely? Questionnaire for owners ask whether their dogs are confined to private property or whether they (or somebody else they know, if admitting this behaviour themselves is likely to be a problem) have ever abandoned a dog. If abandonment or roaming is an issue, why does it occur? What are the beliefs, attitudes or environmental factors that underlie these behaviours? Attitudes and beliefs behind such behaviours may be hard to measure quantifiably (using a numerical regular scale). Discussions or open-format interviews with groups of people with relevant experience (such as dog owners or animal health workers) can help to bring out opinions. Keep these groups small and informal and allow free discussion around topics, using prompting questions to guide the discussion. IFAW/S.COOK Pet owner survey in Dominica. 20 Page 57

59 DMC18/1160 Supplementary 3. What are the welfare problems being experienced by the dog population and why do these occur? SUB QUESTIONS SUGGESTIONS FOR TOOLS/METHODS Measuring welfare can be approached either through animal-based assessment (direct observation of the animals) or resource-based assessment (measuring the access animals have to resources important to their welfare) or a combination of both. Measuring welfare in dog populations, especially those populations that include a proportion of roaming animals, is a relatively understudied area. However, it is important to us as animal welfare advocates that we attempt to address this in some of the important sub-questions. What is the welfare status of the roaming dog population and how prevalent are welfare problems? Direct observation of roaming dogs for health status, such as body condition scores, lameness, injuries and skin conditions. What is the welfare status of owned dogs and how prevalent are welfare problems? Do owners provide their dogs with the resources they require for good welfare? Direct observation of owned dogs for health status and behavioural response to owner (to explore the previous treatment of the dog by the owner). Questionnaire for owners regarding the provision of resources such as health care, food, water and shelter. What is the welfare status of dogs affected by the current control measures? For example, what is the welfare status of dogs in shelters? What euthanasia methods are used, if any? Direct observation of dogs in shelters, using the same criteria used for other categories of dogs to allow for comparison. Discussions with shelter authorities on the resources provided and methods used for euthanasia. What are the survival rates of different types (confined, unowned or owned roaming) or age groups of dogs? Survival can indicate welfare status, as a short average survival would suggest poor health. Survival of unowned roaming populations is hard to measure without following a sample of individuals over time. A questionnaire for owners asking about dogs in their household that have died over the past year can provide an estimate of survival of owned animals and the reasons why animals died (note that the survival of young puppies and adults should be dealt with separately, as these figures are often very different). 4. What is currently being done both informally and officially to control the dog population, and why? SUB QUESTIONS Do people think there is a problem with dog population management locally? What problems are caused by the dogs themselves? SUGGESTIONS FOR TOOLS/METHODS Discussions with small groups of people from a range of backgrounds. Keep groups informal, allow discussion around topics and guide with wellplaced prompting questions. Ask the relevant local authorities about the nature, number and geographical location of complaints. What is currently being done to manage the dog population? Discussions with all relevant stakeholders to understand past, current and any future plans for dog population management. Consider local government, veterinary organisations, NGOs and dog owners themselves. What legislation exists that relates to dog population management? Collect information from both central and local government on legislation relating to dogs it is possible that relevant regulations exist in more than one Act (e.g. disease control, veterinary regulations, environmental regulations). H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M Page 58 21

60 . DMC18/1160 Supplementary ANNEX B: Creating a multi-stakeholder committee The following is an example of a process that can be used to achieve stakeholder involvement and buy-in; such a process can be adapted for different-sized programmes (from small community projects to national programmes). Create a working group of people with an interest in and responsibility for dog population management (see Section A for a list of possible stakeholders). This working group would have responsibility for designing and carrying out the initial data collection and assessment of the local dog population. Following an initial assessment, this working group can be evolved to a formal committee with representation from each relevant stakeholder. The committee should at the very least have terms of reference, a list of membership and a role for members, a commitment to regular meetings, updates of an action plan and a clear aim. It may be possible to base this committee on similar models, for example those created for improving human health. It may also be relevant to invite experienced members of those committees onto the dog population management committee. Each member of the committee is responsible for representing the needs of their stakeholders with regards to dog population management, for example public health organisations would require control of zoonotic disease, NGOs would require an improvement in welfare, the municipal council may require a reduction in nuisance reports. A set of objectives can be drafted based on the data produced by the initial assessment and the needs of each stakeholder. The programme plan can form around this with clear understanding of the aims and what will be seen as success or failure by each stakeholder (see Section D for more information on creating the plan). The responsibility of each committee member in carrying out, monitoring and evaluating the programme needs to be made clear. Once the programme is launched, regular meetings will be required to update on progress and discuss the results of monitoring and evaluation and hence any changes needed to the programme. The committee will essentially be permanent as dog population management is a permanent challenge, although the membership will inevitably change and evolve. The following are suggestions for improving the functioning of the committee: Seminars or workshops can be used to inspire and develop the programme at key points, including the planning stage. This sort of event can also draw on expertise not normally present in the committee. Clarifying roles, including details such as administrative issues (e.g. minutes and meeting arrangements), will help create realistic expectations. These should also be regularly reviewed and rotated, if appropriate. As far as possible the committee should be transparent, to encourage public confidence in the programme. The committee will inevitably experience differences of opinion, so clear guidance and an understanding of how such situations will be managed will help maintain cohesion. The financial commitment required to make the programme successful, both in the short and long term, should be discussed and agreed by the committee. This should include the expected investment by each stakeholder. 22 Page 59

61 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Page 60

62 DMC18/1160 Supplementary The Alliance for Rabies Control UK registered charity number: SC 07 Humane Society International 2100 L Street NW, Washington, DC, 20037, United States Tel: +1 (202) International Fund for Animal Welfare International Headquarters, 411 Main Street, PO Box 193 Yarmouth Port, MA 02675, United States Tel: +1 (508) International Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals International Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS, Unites Kingdom Tel: www. rspca.org.uk World Small Animal Veterinary Association The World Society for the Protection of Animals 89 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (020) Page 61

63 DMC18/1160 Supplementary The most powerful influence for a lifelong positive attitude towards animals is seen when children grow up with dogs in their household. However, there are large social and cultural differences when it comes to dog-keeping practices 1 Attitudes to and care of dogs vary depending on cultural and individual attitudes. As a result, there needs to be targeted educational interventions in place to address these variations and to improve standards of canine care so that control measures are effective in providing a healthy environment for humans and dogs. 1 DOG POPULATION MANAGEMENT FAO/WSPA/IZSAM Expert Meeting Banna, Italy March 2011 I4081E/1/09.14 ISBN FAO ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND HEALTH reports Page 62

64 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Page 63

65 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Page 64

66 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Page 65

67 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Page 66

68 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Page 67

69 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Page 68

70 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Page 69

71 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Page 70

72 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Page 71

73 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Page 72

74 DMC18/1160 Supplementary Page 73

75 DMC18/ Supplementary 1 ~ Dogs, Bites, and Birds A Quiz ~ Who is most likely to be bitten by a dog? (tick all which apply) Children under age 9 Those who have 3 or more dogs in their own home Those who have a family dog NZ Europeans Those from lower socio-economic areas Educational programmes reduce harm in communities better than control/punitive mechanisms True False Enforcing the rules that are already in place helps reduce harm from dogs True False Which of the following is more likely to cause an injury, compared to a dog? (tick all which apply) Tables Beds Slippers Chairs Most dog bite injuries treated in hospital are considered to be a level 3 on a severity scale of 1-6 (1 being minor, 6 being severe) True False Wandering dogs, out of control of their owners, are a potential danger to kiwi True False In 1987, one pet dog killed over 500 kiwi in the Waitangi forest True False How many brown kiwi does DOC estimate there are in the North Island (don t include Kapiti Island)? 2,500 5,000 25,000 Page 74

76 DMC18/ Supplementary 1 How many brown kiwi does DOC estimate there are in Northland? 8,000 2,000 1,000 According to DOC s records, on average, how many kiwi are known to be killed by dogs each year in Northland? Some groups want to ban dogs off leash in areas that are adjacent/next to areas that have kiwi. How much of Northland does DOC define as either Kiwi Present or High Density Kiwi? 25 % 50 % Most of Northland Some groups are lobbying for Long Beach in Russell to be banned to off-leash dogs. Over the last 28 years, how many kiwi have been killed by dogs on the Russell Peninsula (eg out to Cape Reinga, and include the township)? Kiwi Aversion Training stops dogs from killing kiwi True False Electric shock collars, as used in kiwi aversion training, have been banned for cruelty in several countries True False Most BOI Watchdog members want to protect native wildlife True False Part of the purpose of The Dog Control Act 1996 is to allow Councils to protect native wildlife from dogs True False Page 75

77 DMC18/ Supplementary 2 ~ Dogs, Bites, and Birds Answers to Quiz ~ Who is most likely to be bitten by a dog? The vast majority of dog bite incidents occur in people s homes, from the family dog. Those most at risk, and most at risk of bites to the head and neck, are children under the age of nine, those who are Maori, and those who are resident in lower socio-economic areas i. Common sense thus suggests that if Council wished to reduce the incidence and/or severity of dog harm to humans, programmes should be encouraged and developed closely with schools, kohanga reo, parenting organisations, Iwi and Hapu, and social service organisations. There is no evidence that having more dogs is more dangerous. The two dog rule is not supported by any scholarly evidence. Educational programmes reduce harm in communities better than control/punitive mechanisms True. Choices made by guardians regarding how to live with and supervise their companion animals, however, may provide better indicators of risk for injurious bites, according to the study of dog biterelated fatalities described above. The factors identified related primarily to supervision of interactions between dogs and vulnerable individuals, basics of humane treatment and control, and providing the dog with opportunities to live as a true family dog with regular positive interactions with people. These are choices that are likely to be easily incentivized in the majority of dog guardians who want to foster safe, humane communities, and suggest an educative rather than punitive approach to further decreasing injurious bite incidents. ii Note also that in a 2017 survey of 246 BOI Watchdog members, 70% responded yes to the question: Do you think council should provide more education about keeping safe around dogs, and dog owner education? Enforcing the rules that are already in place helps reduce harm from dogs True iii. FNDC needs to not only focus on education, but also choose to provide enough funding for the animal management department to enforce the rules, and make rules that are genuinely able to be enforced. Imagine the change in the district if just the following two basic rules were enforced in Northland 1. Every dog is registered and microchipped, and 2. Every dog must be either contained in its property or under the control of its owner when not on its property. Which of the following is more likely to cause an injury, compared to a dog? Tables, slippers, chairs and beds are more likely to cause an injury than a dog. iv Most dog bite injuries treated in hospital are considered to be a level 3 on a severity scale of 1-6 (1 being minor, 6 being severe) False. 99% of dog bite injuries treated in hospital are considered to be Level 1, or minor. It has been shown that adults have an exaggerated perception of the risk of dog bites. v Wandering dogs, out of control of their owners, are a potential danger to kiwi True. This has been shown to be true in multiple research papers, anecdotally, and in DOC s spreadsheet of reported kiwi deaths by dog , which Dr Jerome recently obtained under OIA. Page 76

78 DMC18/ Supplementary 2 In 1987, one pet dog killed over 500 kiwi in the Waitangi forest. False. This figure is often quoted and derives from a now-famous research paper which found that a wandering german shepherd, which had been in the forest for some time (as it had long claws) had killed 13 of 23 kiwis marked with a transmitter. The author extrapolated from that to say that this dog could have killed 500 of the 900 kiwi in that forest. There were only ever 13 tagged kiwi found dead. vi How many brown kiwi does DOC estimate there are in the North Island (don t include Kapiti Island)? 25,000 vii (Kapiti Island has 1,200 Little Spotted Kiwi) How many kiwi does DOC estimate there are in Northland? 8,000 viii According to DOC s records, on average, how many kiwi are known to be killed by dogs each year in Northland? 10 confirmed deaths per year in Northland, and 2.2 suspected deaths. Some groups want to ban dogs off leash in areas that are adjacent/next to areas that have kiwi. How much of Northland does DOC define as either Kiwi Present or High Density Kiwi? Most of Northland, see map. Some groups are lobbying for Long Beach in Russell to be banned to off-leash dogs. Over the last 28 years, how many kiwi have been killed by dogs on the Russell Peninsula (eg out to Cape Reinga, and include the township)? 4 confirmed, 3 suspected, according to DOCs DOC s spreadsheet of reported kiwi deaths by dog This may even be lower, we are awaiting information from DOC to confirm. Kiwi Aversion Training stops dogs from killing kiwi False. On DOCs own spreadsheet, multiple dogs which have attended their kiwi aversion programme have killed kiwi. This was confirmed in the 2016 presentations to FNDC on the Dog Control Bylaw, the then DOC representative Andrew Blanshard stated that the programme does not work. And in DOC s Kiwi Recovery Plan ( ) it was stated that Kiwi avoidance training for dogs is widely used as one method to limit the impact of dogs on kiwi. However, there is no conclusive proof of its effectiveness. ix We need to find a new, effective, force-free way to discourage dogs from taking an interest in kiwi. Electric shock collars, as used in kiwi aversion training, have been banned for cruelty in several countries True. England (soon), Wales, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, Germany, Quebec and parts of Australia. x Most BOI Watchdog members want to protect native wildlife In a survey in 2017 which was answered by 246 of our members, over 90% said that they wanted to protect native wildlife from dogs. Page 77

79 DMC18/ Supplementary 2 Part of the purpose of The Dog Control Act 1996 is to allow Councils to protect native wildlife from dogs False. FNDC has now received two legal opinions which question the degree of focus on wildlife in the proposals, consultation processes and covering documents around this bylaw and policy. There is a possibility that Council is opening itself to legal challenge for Improper Purpose as a result. ChenPalmer Partners legal opinion from 27 July 2016, Page 2, Point (b) states that they consider that Council does not have the legal right to make bylaws for the express purpose of the protection of wildlife xi. And from a submission this year: The Dog Control Act 1996 imposes obligations on the owners of dogs in relation to wildlife, and provides some powers for local authorities to take action when those obligations are breached. However the empowering sections are not on the issue of wildlife, with the result there is no power to make policy or bylaws for the purpose of protecting it. xii ~ The moral of this quiz ~ Make sure to double check all evidence from multiple sources. Thoroughly check Council s potential legal liability in choosing to have wildlife protection as a key driver of the bylaw and policy. Add a section on Council s responsibilities back into the bylaw, and include education programmes as a key mandate. Reduce the number of wandering dogs, and reduce the time they spend wandering. If you add $180,000 to the Animal Management Department, they could get a crack team of 3 people to rove through key areas monthly, providing education at schools, marae, in the community, and picking up wandering dogs. Encourage Animal Management to focus on very targeted, enforceable rules, such as ensuring registration, microchipping, and no wandering dogs. Reduce the rules to be enforced. Get rid of the 2-dog rule, and the no dogs on leashes everywhere rules. Don t make so many it s impossible for them. Facilitate reasonable dog and bird experts to design solutions for temporary protection of endangered birds which are nesting. In local areas, this could ban humans, dogs, horses and cars for brief periods of time, in specific areas. Kiwi Aversion programmes are ineffective, and potentially cruel. i ii P22 2nd-Edition_0.pdf iii iv Ibid. v Ibid. vi vii viii Ibid. ix P49 x xi xii P5 of Submission Number DMC 18/1150, Karen Anderson, begins on P2417, Submissions # 4 Page 78

80 DMC18/ Supplementary 2 Estimated distribution of Northland brown kiwi (2014) Kiwi Distribution High Density Indicated by (5 or more calls per hr) Present Indicated by (less than 5 calls per hour) Notes: This map represents the distribution of Northland brown kiwi as at January The distribution is a collation of field observations, active recovery projects and professional experience. The distribution is the best judgement possible given the evidence available. Absence of kiwi populations as indicated in this map means that there is no robust anecdotal or survey evidence of populations in these other areas. For further detail please contact: pgraham@doc.govt.nz km Whangarei Office, 25/04/2014 Page 79

81 DMC18/ Supplementary 2 Science was Twisted into Advocacy in the FNDC Dog Control Policy Advice Regrettably, the FNDC proposed Dog Control Policy is being promoted on the basis of misrepresentations of the facts and the science. The following commentary exposes them. Text in italics is the proposal as presented to the Community Board for approval on 14 August ) Discussion and options The Bay of Islands and Whangaroa Community Board has to choose if it intends to protect its native bird population from dogs. This is a false dichotomy. No. The Community Board may have to choose HOW to protect our native bird population, only a. if the Council is empowered to pass by-laws for the protection of wildlife. This purpose is not specified in Sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act and therefore may likely be deemed an improper purpose, and b. if there really is a problem in the Board s area justifying and requiring the severity of the proposed actions. The motive of the policy draft is revealed in this first sentence. There are two vulnerable groups: shore birds and flightless birds. At present, brown kiwi are in decline and the population is rising in the urban areas, together with an increase in visitor numbers. The Department of Conservation website states that: Northland brown kiwi once lived all over Northland. By the 1980s kiwi were locally extinct in many areas. This was largely caused by predation from introduced mammals The brown kiwi is one of our most common kiwi species; however, the population is steadily declining by about 2 3% a year. Without ongoing support, experts estimate brown kiwi will be extinct in the wild within two generations. Wrong. According to DOC, the Northland population is increasing under present management: Northland is considered to be a stronghold for brown kiwi, as it contains around 32% of the total New Zealand population. If current management effort is maintained, this population is expected to climb from 8000 birds in 2008 to 8500 birds by This estimate is based on a 3% annual decline for unmanaged populations and an annual increase of 9% in managed locations (Hugh Robertson, unpubl. data in Holzapfel et al. 2008). 1 Research studies show that: Dogs known to have killed kiwi in Northland include farm dogs, hunting dogs, and family pets including Rottweilers, Labradors, fox terriers, and a poodle (Pierce, R.J. and Sporle, W. 1997, Causes of kiwi mortality in Northland. Wellington: Department of Conservation). In Northland, it has been shown that the average lifespan of an adult brown kiwi is only years rather than the years in all other brown kiwi populations due mainly to predation by dogs, That claim is based on one study in the Whangarei area in which 22 kiwi were reportedly killed by dogs over a period of 15 years. No evidence was given as to how these were clustered in time or 1 of 6 Page 80

82 DMC18/ Supplementary 2 Science was Twisted into Advocacy in the FNDC Dog Control Policy Advice place. Extrapolating and generalising this to the whole of Northland without due caution is indefensible. and, for some populations (e.g. in Northland), dogs have surpassed mustelids as the main agent of decline. (DOC, Draft Kiwi Recovery Plan ). The claim implies that some 250 kiwi are killed by dogs in Northland every year. There is no evidence of anything approaching that number. On the Russell peninsula there have been only 3 reported dog kills in the last 17 years according to Laurence Gordon who pioneered the Russell Peninsular Kiwi project in Far more have been killed on the roads. Council submitted in support of the Plan and requested engagement with DOC at a national level. DOC have responded agreement that local regulation may play a larger role in protecting wildlife and discussions with government agencies, including Document number A Page 7 of 10 the Department of Internal affairs and DOC have taken place to better align policy responses at a national, regional and local level. Call count monitoring of northland brown kiwi 2016 by DOC states: The 2016 results from the Eastern Area were excellent, with an all-time high mean kiwi call rate. Contradicting the claims that kiwi are in decline and there is a need for more stringent dog control, the only reliable data set of kiwi call counts shows no decline anywhere in Northland for the past decade and increasing numbers for the past two decades in the Bay of Islands and Eastern area 3 : On the Russell Peninsula: And in the whole of Northland, including the Eastern area which covers the Bay of Islands/Whangaroa area: 2 of 6 Page 81

83 DMC18/ Supplementary 2 Science was Twisted into Advocacy in the FNDC Dog Control Policy Advice The issue arises that as kiwis expand in numbers they will be more prevalent in areas currently frequented by dogs. A particular effort has been made by volunteers in Russell resulting in an encouraging trend as per the table below: Note that kiwi avoidance training is at best only partially effective and depends upon all dog owners in an area being responsible, which operational experience suggests is not the case at present. It is a method best applied for hunting or working dogs (see Kiwis for Kiwis for more information). Kiwi are territorial and have a maximum density of about 1 pair per 2 hectares. There is no evidence that there is a dog predation problem in the Russell area, nor that one is likely to arise. Brown kiwi are an indicator species. That implies other vulnerable species are also doing very well in Russell and the Bay of Islands. Other protected wildlife predated upon by dogs in the Community Board area include the following: Brown teal - pateke (Anas chlorotis, conservation status: recovering) are the rarest of the mainland water fowl, and are found at lndico Bay, northwest Urupukapuka Island, and in many estuarine wetland areas around the eastern Bay of Islands. Dogs are known predators of brown teal. 3 of 6 Page 82

84 DMC18/ Supplementary 2 Science was Twisted into Advocacy in the FNDC Dog Control Policy Advice Dogs are not permitted on Urupukapuka Island/Indico Bay. There are no reported studies of dog predation levels of brown teal and dogs appear to be a minor factor both in predation and population decline. With better control of other predators and habitat brown teal status is now rated as recovering. 5 Unfortunately most of our estuarine wetlands have been converted to the mangrove mudflats that DoC has championed despite their obvious status as an invasive weed destructive of both productive wildlife habitat and biodiversity. Tackling that problem would be helpful. Dotterel (Charadrius obscurus, conservation status: nationally vulnerable) nest just above high tide mark around many beaches. Nests are easily trampled by dogs. Both adults and chicks cannot feed on the water's edge when disturbed and chicks are left unattended when their parents are forced away by dogs. Eggs may not be at a life-sustaining temperature if left unattended due to disturbance. Bay of Island beaches have long been trampled by residents and visitors far more than by dogs. Dotterel breed for only a month or so and the sensible approach is to restrict both human and dog access to those areas in use for the period required on a case by case basis. If the Council wants to be effective it will enlist the help of dog owners to identify and protect those times and places on their beaches rather than take an adversarial approach. Dotterels often cluster with Variable Oystercatchers (Haematopus unicolor: conservation status recovering) which are also vulnerable to dogs. Little blue penguin (Eudyp tula minor, conservation status: declining) may breed as isolated pairs or in colonies, close to the sea in natural burrows and in/under a variety of man-made structures. Penguins are under threat of predation when dogs that are not under control wander away from beaches into the coastal landscape where penguins are resting in dens or nesting. There are numerous inaccessible spots on our shoreline for oystercatchers and penguins to frequent. Again, those popular beaches where people congregate are unlikely to be preferred habitat. They do not nest in the sand like dotterel. Unless nesting, blue penguin are normally at sea during the day when people and their dogs are using the beaches. Again sensible time and place protections are much more sensible and effective than blanket bans. North Island weka (Gallirallus australis grey, conservation status: endangered) are ground dwelling, flightless birds which are known to be charismatic and attracted to human activity. Since 2000, weka have been released near Russell, in the Whirinaki Forest. Document number A Page 8 of 10 Weka are essentially feathered rats and the population has exploded in Russell township and self-evidently is not at risk from dogs, though it may be from irate gardeners. Anyone under the misapprehension they are endangered and need protection doesn t live here. 4 of 6 Page 83

85 DMC18/ Supplementary 2 Science was Twisted into Advocacy in the FNDC Dog Control Policy Advice Banded rail (Gallirallus phillippensis assimilis conservation status: at risk, naturally uncommon) is a largely terrestrial bird. They have been recorded in a wide variety of inland and coastal wetland areas, particularly in mangrove stands. Irrelevant to dog control. No evidence dogs are a significant predation threat to them other than when duck shooting 4. The national situation is summarised in a May 2017 report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Taonga of an island nation: Saving New Zealand's birds: This report looks at the desperate state of New Zealand s native birds, the challenges they face, and what it might take to restore them in large numbers back on to the mainland. New Zealand is home to 168 species of native bird, and many of these are found in no other country they are endemic to New Zealand. Four out of every five are in trouble and some sit on the brink of extinction. This investigation is focused on a vision a vision of restoring abundant, resilient, and diverse native birdlife on the mainland. Realising this vision will require using the knowledge, ingenuity, and passion of many New Zealanders. Emotive posturing irrelevant to actual risk and dog control issues. Other factors than dogs are causing these problems. Dog control must be directed at real issues, not irrelevant ones. On the Russell peninsula, there is a high presence of reintroduced and protected wildlife at significant risk from dogs and no suitable beaches for dogs to exercise due to the proximity and presence of kiwi, little blue penguins and other birds. Dogs have been exercising on Russell beaches for generations with no indication of any significant impact on wildlife as the high levels of survival of that wildlife relative to other areas demonstrates. Russell dog owners and their family pets should not be punished for their excellent record of preserving the wildlife they love so well. Rather than be destroyed by oppressive regulation their goodwill should be harnessed in a cooperative way. The proposed bylaw would be destructive for community relations and the conservation cause it purports to promote. The justification presented for it fails to present the scientific facts fairly and objectively. 29 th August 2017 Alan Wilkinson, PhD, BSc(Hons) References: 1 Taxon plan for Northland brown kiwi; Strategic plan for Northland brown kiwi, and beyond, Emma Craig, Clea Gardiner, Nicky Renwick and Wendy Sporle. Department of Conservation, Whangarei, Personal communication. See also: 5 of 6 Page 84

86 DMC18/ Supplementary 2 Science was Twisted into Advocacy in the FNDC Dog Control Policy Advice 3 Call count monitoring of Northland brown kiwi 2016, Emma Craig and Megan Topia. April 2017 New Zealand Department of Conservation 4 Impacts of introduced mammalian predators on indigenous birds of freshwater wetlands in New Zealand, Colin F. J. O Donnell, B. Kay Clapperton and Joanne M. Monks. New Zealand Journal of Ecology (2015) 39(1): Pateke Survival Guide, Department of Conservation, Whangarei, of 6 Page 85

87 DMC18/1188 Supplementary Page 86

88 DMC18/1188 Supplementary Page 87

89 DMC18/1188 Supplementary Page 88

90 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 89

91 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 90

92 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 91

93 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 92

94 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 93

95 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 94

96 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 95

97 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 96

98 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 97

99 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 98

100 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 99

101 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 100

102 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 101

103 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 102

104 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 103

105 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 104

106 DMC18/1210 Supplementary xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Page 105

107 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 106

108 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 107

109 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 108

110 DMC18/1210 Supplementary Page 109

111 Page 110

112 DMC18/1217 Supplementary Page 111

113 DMC18/1217 Supplementary Page 112

114 DMC18/1217 Supplementary Page 113

115 DMC18/1217 Supplementary Page 114

116 DMC18/1222 (Supplementary) Verbal Submission on Dog Management, 30/10/18 Two Dog Policy As stated in my written submission we would like to see Council adopt a bylaw restricting dog numbers to 2 or less on rural properties of 1.5ha and less. This would simply be an extension to Councils present 2 dog policy in the named built up areas. The aim of the extension is to give district wide consistent policy across the district. Properties in rural areas in excess of 1.5ha would be excluded as they would have sufficient room for more than 2 dogs. Boarding or breeding kennels on less than 1.5ha would be subject to resource consent as they are now. Adopting this as a bylaw would not deprive any dog lover of enjoying up to 2 dogs even on a standard residential section but will cut out the overcrowding unsanitary, dangerous, undesirable breeding and inbreeding practises with dogs left for long periods tied up. Council Implementation of the Dog Control Act. In the last three or four years we have had an on-going issue with neighbouring dogs. I have found Council dog control staff to be reluctant to police the issue and use the powers available under the legislation. Complaints to Council bought little or no action. It wasn t till we contacted the Mayor that anything was taken seriously. One written reported complaint that involved an attack on myself bought no action or feedback by council staff. My wife has also been accosted by straying dogs on more than one occasion. Sometime latter a lady was attacked in the adjoining urupa suffering cuts to her legs. Possibly this was the same dog. Prompt early action by council dog control could prevent down stream injury. Council staff s answer to the vicious dog problem seemed to be tie the dog up. This was done resulting in dogs being left on the chain indefinitely but still able to breed. Ron & Anne Melville Mataraua Rd, Kaikohe Page 115

117 DMC18/1222 (Supplementary) Page 116

118 DMC18/1261 Supplementary Page 117

119 DMC18/1261 Supplementary Page 118