By Roney Lyndem
The issue of stray dogs in India is an issue of public health, animal welfare, and civic responsibility.
The presence of a large stray animal population in our streets has led and will continue to lead to a series of conflicts between animal lovers and all others who may not have the same thoughts and values as them.
There is thus an urgent need for a comprehensive and humane solution to this issue even in our state.
Ownerless Animals and especially stray dogs need dedicated spaces for living that is managed and funded by state authorities and animal lovers and this is the most acceptable solution to this issue of stray dogs.
At the heart of the conflict, there is a very real and tragic consequences of human-stray animal interactions. The fear of dog attacks is not unfounded. The pack mentality of dogs, driven by territorial instincts and the search for food, can lead to aggressive behaviour and Children being the most vulnerable are most prone to the attacks. This is a concern because not only do we risk losing a life but such incidences can lead to larger conflict between different opinions people and the killing of ownerless dogs regardless of who or which dog or pack of dogs did the deed.
Rabies death is also another concern, a bite by a dog requires immediate action and since the vaccine itself is a hassle to acquire and is not understood especially by children, they may ignore the bite which can be fatal.
This concern is borne out by alarming statistics. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that India accounts for 36% of the world’s rabies deaths, with between 18,000 and 20,000 fatalities annually. From the above data, a significant portion of these victims are children under the age of 15.
In recent years there has been a surge in dog bite incidents, further intensifying public anxiety. In 2024 alone, over 3.7 million dog bite cases were reported across the country. The health risks associated with stray dogs especially the transmission of rabies, is an actual health concern since Rabies is a fatal disease, we must be weary and prepared to address this issue. However to just rid the streets of stray dogs by euthanasia is not the solution. The only logical and rational solution is the presence of Animal shelters that is well funded to care for these animals.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India in the stray dog issue directed authorities particularly in the context of Delhi-NCR, to relocate stray dogs to shelter homes, emphasizing the paramount importance of public safety, especially for children and the elderly.
This judgment has been met with both praise from those who advocated for stray dog free public spaces, and criticism from animal welfare activists who question the feasibility and humanity of mass relocation, citing concerns about the conditions in already existing overburdened animal shelters.
The legal landscape remains complex, with conflicting judgments on the legality of relocating stray dogs versus the mandate of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which advocate for sterilization and return to the original territory.
Under intense pressure and following a heated, weeks-long national debate on the issue, the top court last week revised its order, saying that dogs should be captured and released back to the streets they live on after being sterilised and vaccinated – which is largely in keeping with current best practice.
In this issue, each state has to take responsibility for managing its stray animal population in a humane and proper manner that will not disregard one populace opinion over the other.
Rather than bickering, a proactive step is rather required to solve this issue. In Meghalaya, for instance, the high Court has been instrumental in directing the state government to form Animal Birth Control committees in every district. The state has reported the implementation of measures such as awareness campaigns, vaccination drives, sterilization programs, and the establishment of shelters.
This localized approach, driven by judicial oversight, could serve as a model for other states to follow but there is still the lack of animal shelters that can help relocate stray dogs from unwanted and dangerous places/localities where people are against having stray dogs in the area. Activist may be against the idea of taking a dog from its original territory and relocation them elsewhere or into shelter homes but the alternative is that these dogs may face unwanted violent action by those who do not wish for them to be there. If people and authority can easily chase out people who they find to be an eyesore without a care then what makes it hard for them to outrightly kill an innocent creature simply because they did not like their presence? If its between death and living elsewhere, isn’t the latter option the better choice?
The path forward requires a balanced approach that acknowledges the validity of both public safety concerns and animal welfare. The voices and concern from animal activists for state funded, well-equipped and properly managed shelters is a valid one and is not at odds with the need for safer streets especially for those who have a fear of dogs, children who are unable to defend themselves and for the elderly etc. In fact, the two are complementary.
In conclusion, it is essential to follow the rules to control the stray dog population, invest in making and maintaining high-quality animal shelters that can provide a safe and humane environment for animals that cannot be returned to the streets and the goal must be to create a society where both humans and animals can coexist peacefully and safely.
Thus, we need a shift in mind-set, moving away from the polarized and often vitriolic debate, and towards a more law abiding, collaborative and solution-oriented approach to issues that involve public peace and security for all.
(The writer is an experienced Counsellor and can be reached at roneymlyndem@gmail.com)
