Township Dog Attacks 3: Animal Birth Control

In this third post relating to the horrible tragedy in Philippi last month, I feel compelled to stick my neck out and take a critical look at the much hyped sterilization issue (spaying and neutering of animals) and question whether this will solve current dog/human problems in urban South Africa. Of course I realize that this is sacred ground: there are few concepts that so unite all interested parties in the companion animal field – local authorities, NGO’s, Veterinary Associations, trainers, Animal Behaviourists and activist groups – and this unity contrasts so markedly with the rancor that usually reigns. But recent local bylaws and increasing pressure from welfare activists for mandatory sterilization requires some unpacking, at the very least, before a hellishly expensive folly is perpetrated on the animals and poor people of Cape Town.

There seems far too much zealotry in evidence on this issue, and as an Animal Behaviourist with a keen interest in behavioural ecology and population dynamics, it raises many red flags. I am concerned about the way data is being represented, how little evidence exists to substantiate some of the claims being made and how little consideration is being given to the possible long-term implications for the affected species’. Spay/neuter has an important place in animal management but in recent years, Animal Behaviourists have become increasingly selective about recommending it in the pet world, recognizing that it can sometimes be inappropriate or make problems worse. But this caution isn’t mirrored in the sterilization lobby at all. In fact, there seems to be very little compelling evidence I’ve seen to suggest that the kind of problems we’re currently experiencing in Cape Town are rooted in population density: so I’m left wondering whether or not this is a case of wanting to look like we’re doing something proactive?

 

Scavenging by street dogs is rooted in the species’ history

Of course, if people believe that dogs emerged when some Mesolithic hunter brought a bunch of orphaned wolf cubs back from the hunt, raised and socialized them so well that over time, somehow magically, they transformed into dogs, then they’re also likely to assume that purebred, pet dogs are the closest link we have to the domestic dog’s ancient prototype. The rest of the canine world, that bulk population, with hundreds of millions of dogs of various shapes and sizes that are found wandering most streets and almost every corner of the globe, must instead epitomize the debasement of this ancient heritage. Accordingly and somewhat unsurprisingly, street dogs have become emblematic of an assumed human fecklessness, irresponsibility and neglect. If eugenics lies unspoken at the door of the dog world, its analysis of people will always be in close attendance.

But this ‘just so’ origin myth is a very unlikely explanation of how dogs came to be, diverging from wild ancestors some 10 000 to 15 000 years ago. Most biologists now agree that at the very dawn of human agriculture, some ancestral wild-type canids probably began to spend time mooching around these new human settlements, and soon their primary living was being made from scavenging human debris. In this process they probably began to lose their ability to catch enough food through hunting to sustain themselves and became dependent on this new resource, and became less fearful of human proximity over time. On the road to domestication, canis familiaris likely became a specialized scavenger, and it is a feature that remains a defining characteristic of the species to this day.

This is currently the most widely accepted hypothesis for canine domestication amongst scholars, and if true, suggests that street dogs are behaviourally and ecologically far more akin to protodog – albeit an urban rather than rural version – than any suburban purebred pet could ever be. Through founder effects, discriminatory human tolerance and geographic isolation, over time these dogs would have formed the basic landraces that have been catalogued. And these provided the stock from which humans selected and refined the 40 or so functionally-defined breeds that were recognised prior to the mid 18th Century, which should not be confused with the modern, more whimsical breeds we identify today. Most modern breeds are a product of the Victorian Dog Fancy, are less than 150 years old: and many far less than that.

 

Taking a critical look at sterilisation as a model for population control

The phylogeny (evolutionary history) of the domestic dog provides a long history of calamity and recovery, often very quickly. Whilst the apparent benignancy and one-size-fits-all character of mass spay/neuter campaigns may make them appealing, and their promise of a humane alternative to the widespread practice of culling and cruelty they seek to replace has to be an improvement, it must also be borne in mind that their viability and even efficacy remains untested over the long-haul. Keeping dogs in the environmental niche they currently occupy, rather than permanent removing them by either killing, relocating or adopting them away from this niche certainly prevents that resource simply opening up for other dogs to use and reproduce in (and enhance the survivability chances for those), it cannot simply become a blind dogma. History demonstrates unequivocally the ineffectiveness of culling to manage canine population size; mass sterilization is still being tested.

Also, there is a price to pay in narrowing genetic diversity. Successful implementation of sterilization will cause, if ever widely effective, a fundamental remapping of the canine genome. All of the rich, diverse genetic variability that currently resides in the background population of dogs will be lost forever – or at least substantially restricted. And slowly a different gene map for the domestic dog will emerge, dominated by the ever-narrowing and in-bred ‘pedigreed’ population, along with the basket of genetic anomalies and diseases they are now overwhelmed by. And with the growing popularity of larger fighting and guarding breeds being kept as human pets, this too will inevitably seep into the background population and make its own mark on the canine genome in years to come. Some may consider this trivial, but for those interested in ecological diversity, or those who take dogs seriously, it needs to be factored in.

In my early years of dog training and behavioural consulting, I routinely advocated desexing as was common practice back then. Not only did it seem the only responsible option to deal with overpopulation, it was also sold as the answer to a glut of problems – often speculatively. Since then I have come to appreciate the real complexities involved, which were unacknowledged a decade or two ago. Attributing problems such as that witnessed in Philippi a while ago to dog ‘overpopulation’, or simply presuming that mass sterilization campaigns in South Africa would be either viable in the short-term, or effective in the longer run, remains entirely unproven. Insisting that they will substantially address the current dog problems in our townships and informal settlements is probably way too simplistic to be taken at face value.

 

Doesn’t spay/neuter change dog’s personalities?

Perhaps I appear entirely unsympathetic to the subject – if so then I must apologise, because I’m not. Sexual sterilization certainly has played a prominent and oftentimes positive role in population management over the last few decades. Following the lead of the no-kill movement in the USA from the mid-1990’s¹, it has become a central cause for both the Animal Rights and Animal Welfare movements worldwide. And for at least a decade and a half, it has also been portrayed as a 100% effective and largely consequence-free option for controlling animal numbers. In recent years there have been a flurry of (controversial to some) veterinary studies that insist that very early neutering has very few physiological drawbacks.

The behavioural effects have, on the other hand, always been a lot less clear. These have never been adequately studied, largely due to the lack of any scientifically validated and objective measure for evaluating behaviours ‘before’ and ‘after’ desexing as anything else. Nonetheless, the accepted advantages have been heavily promoted to the public, and the relative lack of supporting data not widely publicised. Please don’t get me wrong, applied astutely spay/neuter can be hugely beneficial, and in my experience, prove to be the best (and sometimes only) intervention to resolve certain behavioural issues: some forms of obdurate indoor urine-marking by male dogs, as one example, and some intact male-male conflict dynamics between household dogs as another. It is usually a surefire solution to remedy over-confident males who enjoy bullying other dogs, and is often helpful with inveterate roamers.

But in the mid-1990’s, a number of British Animal Behaviourists began counseling caution in the face of the blanket spay/neuter advocacy that was then standard. Especially at risk were the notably timid and unconfident – both cats and dogs – as well as with many feuding household bitches. The issues began to accumulate, and gradually we came to the point where many knowledgeable vets and behaviourists now advocate a clear ‘case-by-case’ policy, especially with dogs. And proposals for mandatory sterilization bylaws have typically been opposed by the Veterinary Profession worldwide²³⁴. There are few practical alternatives to desexing cats, other than continuous confinement. Nevertheless, castrating timid male cats can still have temperamental fallout – so caution is always necessary.

Without any doubt, more investigation into the behavioural ramifications of sterilization is urgently required. Last year, the outline of a thesis submitted to Hunter College by Parveen Farhoody (and still in publication) has raised eyebrows throughout our profession. Using the C-BARQ behavioural questionnaire pioneered by James Serpell and Colleagues (the only peer reviewed system found to be reliable and valid), her findings are disturbing and re-emphasize the extent of our lack of evidence and just how much subjective assumptions are still driving this issue:

“ By using a larger sample of dogs than any used previously to examine behavior in dogs, we found significant correlations between neutering dogs and increases in aggression, fear and anxiety, and excitability, regardless of the age at which the dog was neutered. There were also significant correlations between neutering and decreases in trainability and responsiveness to cues. The other three behavioral categories examined (miscellaneous behavior problems, attachment and attention-seeking behavior, and separation-related behavior) showed some association with neutering, but these differed more substantially depending on the age at which the dog was neutered. The overall trend seen in all these behavioral data was that the earlier the dog was neutered, the more negative the effect on the behavior. “

 

But we can’t do nothing

If our cities are being over-run by street dogs and they are becoming a social menace, some emergency strategy is required before more dogs are harmed or killed. Even if it just provides immediate respite, it still may be necessary. Culling is not the answer (both in terms of efficacy and social demands for humane treatment of animals) and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) approach has had notable success in countries as diverse as India⁵, Costa Rica and Tunisia. So sterilisation is very likely to play a central part in how we manage these populations in the future, but it must be considered only as one part of a comprehensive strategy, and must be done properly. It’s a tool, not a doctrine. C/TNR (Capture/Trap, Neuter, Return to place of capture ) is the most effective way to go⁶, and dogs should never be physically removed unless unavoidable.

Most importantly, properly identifying the real reasons for any dramatic increase in the dog population over the last few years is crucial. Simply attributing it to backyard breeding is unsubstantiated, unhelpful and misses the point entirely. We need to uncover the conditions that have impacted fecundity (reproductive capacity) so dramatically, and quickly get to grips with why so many more dogs are surviving once they’re already born.

All the information from around the world makes one factor abundantly clear – rubbish and human waste is what sustains and increases populations of community dogs.

So whilst engaged in promoting the ABC approach, if that is what is proposed, I urge the City of Cape Town to concentrate on more effective (but incrementally implemented) rubbish removal from the poor neighbourhoods of this city, and urgently attend to the dysfunctional sanitation provision in many of them. This is not only because of the number of dogs being sustained, but because of the potential effect on human health. And this garbage clearance must be phased in incrementally, to avoid further negatively impacting the dogs for whom this is currently the only source of food.

 

Work within communities and provide the help people want

The past decade has seen the launch of a number of very successful community-focused initiatives premised on nurturing ongoing relationships of trust with residents in the poorest areas. They help residents with animal problems wherever possible and provide some access to both animal health care, provisions (when they can) and pertinent education. But by design, in order to create exactly that intimacy and trust, most are very small with little funding, and so their overall impact has been limited.

 

 

But in areas such as Hout Bay, due in part to its physical isolation from the rest of Cape Town, groups such as Hout Bay Pets certainly have made an enormous difference in a short period of time, and the communities of both Imazamo Yethu and Hangberg now have a reliable and accessible resource to call on for help with their animals on an ongoing basis. Alas, due to their limited scale and narrow jurisdiction, they have to primarily concentrate on owned, pet dogs. But their policy of non-condescending intervention, changing the focus on ‘rescue’ to a premise of ‘assistance’, and offering non-judgmental assistance of all sorts has changed the situation in Hout Bay significantly, and for the better. We need more Hout Bay Pets in South Africa.

Other groups in Cape Town are also offering useful assistance in more cooperative and less disdainful ways, and some on a far broader scale. Project for the Upliftment of Pets and People (PUPP) has been involved in animal welfare employing a similar modus operandi for some time, with mixed results. The more recent Community Led Animal Welfare (CLAW – mostly Gauteng based) is certainly intimately involved within poor communities in ways that traditional welfare groups have so far failed to be. However, whilst these have certainly been more successful than the traditional welfare tack at cementing community confidence, there is still too much evidence of a very middle-class conception of ‘pet-keeping’, too many animals being removed (‘rescued’), and a narrow emphasis on that emblematic welfare concept – sterilisation. Helping people better manage existing dogs, education and resource provision must be the preferred focus at this stage.

 

Dogs are as much an ‘asset’ as a ‘blight’

Street dogs form an inextricable part of the ecosystem, both rural and urban. They prosper on human waste and debris, and as such prevent overflow. They also are essential in curbing the proliferation of rats⁷, and when suddenly removed, cats have been known to move in and quickly multiply instead. And they are often valued by poor and indigent residents.

But it seems obvious now that people are calling for assistance, and this should be founded on helping them manage all neighbourhood dogs, whether owned and roaming, or those not owned but partially cared for; in fact, whatever relationships exist. Welfare education and assistance with ongoing care is essential, as is not haranguing those barely able to keep life and soul together about ‘responsible pet ownership’. It will only serve to alienate. Tagging dogs will provide an important mechanism to facilitate better data gathering, one of the elements currently missing. And access to affordable and accessible veterinary assistance must be made as easy as possible – the days of simply situating of a mobile clinic somewhere in the area are over.

If dogs are becoming dangerous to people, then they may need to be relocated or euthanized but this should also be an appropriately informed decision. Sterilisation programmes should conform to the ABC guidelines, and can stabilize the dog populations (as has been the case in numerous cities in India). But it would be a mistake for local authorities, welfare NGO’s or even animal activists to hang all their hopes on a single, still experimental protocol. It is essential to appreciate the natural history of the domestic dog, it’s long and complicated association with humans and its unique reproductive strategy.

They have lots of pups, very often, and with minimal parental investment, are ideally adapted as marginal scavengers with very low infant survivorship. If they suddenly experience a significant increase in the carrying capacity of a specific environment like an urban slum, with its prodigious amounts of garbage, human effluent, rats and usable shelter, dog’s numbers will inevitably increase very quickly.

 

 

Tread softly – this is still unchartered territory

My call to everyone involved is to deal with this issue soberly, cooperatively and accepting that there are no quick-fixes that will prove sustainable. Sterilisation may be a very useful part of any solution, but this can never become a single-strategy approach. And however useful and progressive ABC might prove to be, please let’s not become unduly evangelical about it; let’s appreciate the many layers, acknowledge how much we don’t know and be prepared to tailor our approach as new information becomes available⁸. In the meantime, spay/neuter should always be done on the back of professional advice, and on a case-by-case basis.

 

Additional Resources:

• Human Dog Population Management Guidance – International Companion Animal Management Coalition
• Free-Roaming Dogs in Developing Countries: The Benefits of
  Capture, Neuter, and Return Programs – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.