Zonne animale pro

treat the animals for parasites at the time of sterilization. The benefits of such an approach can include: • Reduction in zoonoses transmission. • Sterilizing roaming animals can improve their health by taking away the energy costs of breeding, and reduces the risks of injury and disease transmission of breeding. • Sterilizing a roaming animal ensures that it will no longer give birth to offspring that would be likely to suffer and die at a young age. • Returning a sterilized animal to its original territory reduces migration of other roaming animals into that area; conversely, removing the animal allows migration and increased access to resources which can improve reproductive success of remaining animals. • Roaming populations can continue to function as biological control of rodents, hence their relatively common use as method of rat population management. CNR can essentially lead to a stable and healthy population of dogs, if the sterilization rate is maintained at a high enough level. The percentage of dogs that will need to be sterilized will depend upon reproduction rate and survival in the particular population of animals, as described previously. However, CNR alone will not address the roaming dog problem in the long term, while there is an owned population that is not accessible to the catching teams, not being neutered, and potentially providing a source of roaming dogs. Hence CNR alone may not lead to a significant reduction in population size. Instead, it should be seen as a temporary method that stabilizes the current roaming population while additional sources of roaming dogs are also addressed for the long term. It is also important to be aware that CNR may actually be counterproductive for building a culture of responsible animal ownership, when some of the animals being caught are actually roaming owned dogs, or roaming dogs that the immediate local community considers at least partially their responsibility. In this situation the responsibility for neutering and vaccination should lie with the owners or community. Consequently, a neutering and vaccination programme that is based on community or owner participation and education would be more effective in the long term than CNR. The following is a list of requirements that must be in place for CNR to be considered as an appropriate method for dog population management. Assessment of the location as described earlier will help to identify if these requirements exist: • The majority of the population of roaming dogs are unowned. If many of the roaming dogs are in fact community or roaming owned dogs, then the neutering and vaccination programme should be carried out using participation of local people rather than catching dogs on the streets. • Roaming dogs are a significant source of the next generation of roaming dogs, in other words they are breeding successfully. If dogs on the street do not seem to be able to raise a litter to maturity this indicates that the source of the roaming dogs is owned dogs, and so these should be the target for the neutering programme. • The environment can support roaming dogs in a good state of welfare. For example, traffic flow is slow or light, and there are reliable food sources available. • Local people want to maintain the local roaming dog population as part of their community. Without support from local people the programme will not only be difficult to run, but also the safety of the returned dogs will not be guaranteed. • There is support from both local and national government. Without such support, the safety of returned dogs cannot be guaranteed. • There is an understanding that CNR will achieve stabilization for the short term and will be replaced in the long term with a programme that will address other sources of roaming dogs and increase responsible ownership, working towards the ultimate goal of all companion animals having responsible and caring owners. Although CNR can be effective for zoonotic disease control and population reduction (Reece and Chawla, 2006) there are many important limitations on its use. An important principle to consider is that the welfare of every animal that is caught, sterilized, and returned becomes the responsibility of the CNR programme. The return of the sterilized animal to the streets does not signal the end of this responsibility; the likely fate of returned animals must be considered. The following lists examples of situations where a CNR technique is not suitable. Assessment (as described earlier) will help identify if any of these are relevant for the location in question: • When the roaming dog population is found to reproduce unsuccessfully (i.e. they are not the source of the next generation of roaming dogs). Sterilization efforts should instead be focused on the true source of roaming dogs. • Where there is indiscriminate killing of roaming dogs. To return a dog to this situation places its welfare at risk, and to catch and sterilize dogs that will later be killed is a waste of resources. • Where the environment is unsuitable. Large urban areas with fast-flowing traffic are not suitable for CNR programmes. Releasing a dog into an environment where it is likely to be run down does not constitute good animal welfare. • Where the local community has intolerance. Not all people like roaming dogs, and there may be strong religious and cultural reasons for negative views towards certain species. Efforts should be made to educate people about the positive consequences of a CNR programme; however, the opinions of local people should be considered, as they have a right to a view on their local environment. It is also very important to consider how local people will react towards roaming dogs once they have been returned. Cruelty and abuse towards roaming dogs is an unfortunate reality that must be considered. From the above discussion, it is clear that CNR will only be suitable in a restricted number of situations and may not be suitable across a whole nation or city. This approach may be more suitable for cat population management, as roaming cats tend to match the required criteria more closely than dogs, although this should be tested through an initial assessment. Disease and parasite control The best form of disease and parasite control in dogs is a programme of regular preventative measures, as opposed to relying solely on surveillance and treatment of cases once they have already occurred. The aim of preventative veterinary measures is to provide animal welfare and human health benefits through reduction in zoonotic diseases. They are sometimes required by law, for example rabies vaccinations in most rabies-endemic countries. These preventative measures usually need regular application, so it is important to consider the sustainability of access to these treatments. Setting up ongoing access through local veterinary infrastructures is usually ideal. If a zoonotic disease transmitted by dogs is identified as the main problem for a particular location, a programme to provide preventative measures on a mass and coordinated short-term scale may be most effective, especially if disease elimination is the goal. For example, the mass annual or bi-annual dog rabies vaccination programmes run in nearly all Latin American countries since the 1980s (Schneider et al., 2005) has led to a significant and widespread reduction in dog and human rabies cases across Latin America. Combining sterilization with preventative treatments such as rabies vaccination may improve disease control. Although the costs of sterilization are not insignificant (the average full cost of surgical sterilization including medicines, vet time, and infrastructure costs for WSPA-funded projects in 2009 was US$ 25 per dog, ranging from US$ 10.30 to US$ 52 per dog), so an analysis should be completed of whether sterilization costs provide sufficient disease control benefits to warrant the investment. Benefits of dog

Open Next Page To See More