Autonomous non-profit organization Results of research into the stray dog urban population Stray dog niche in urban ecology Possible stray dog strategies
“Center for Animal Welfare Legal Protection”
Materials of the workshop for animal-protection organizations,
January 26, 1996, Moscow
by Candidate of Biology, RAS Institute of Ecology and Evolution Problems, Canines Group A.D.Poyarkov.
(excerpts)
Main consequences of trapping stray dogs
A population invariably responds to a higher rate of morality by increasing proliferation, which leads to the following crucial consequences.
(Commentary: this assertion may be considered scientifically valid and proven only for the case, when adoption of a stray dog trapping strategy is accompanied an increase of the fodder resource, which means the following:
- stray dogs (females) left untrapped are better off as far as nutrition is concerned and produce more numerous sets of puppies;
- with an increase of the fodder base such as this, the percentage of surviving puppies in the sets of stray females is on the upgrade;
- the percentage of “male dogs” in the sets of puppies of stray females increases.
However, in the case of not just sufficient, but rather abundant fodder base that we observe in Moscow today (food provided by individual guardians, garbage-cans, crumbs given by citizens – stray dogs are fat; heaps of food uneaten by dogs are scrounged by rats!), there are no grounds for such an assertion.)
(see: discussion of this thesis at the scientific conference “Problems of pet dog research”, April 14, 2006, RAS Severtsov IEEP)
1.Population undergoes rejuvenescence.
(Commentary: if the strategy of sample (other than general) trapping of stray dogs is adopted in Moscow, “population rejuvenescence” shall certainly take place, and not due to greater rate of proliferation (see earlier comment), but thanks to the increase of the ratio of new-born puppies to the overall population declining as a result of trapping. Thus, this assertion is simply a mathematical trick.)
2. When population structure is destroyed, it is re-grouped according to area transformation.
3. Rejuvenescence and transformation of area structure lead to a greater mobility.
4. All these parameters: population rejuvenescence, greater mobility and making the state evermore chaotic are extremely unfortunate in terms of epizootics situation.
5. Trapping provokes a definitely dangerous response of the population, including a panicky response.
(Commentary: Here, A.D,.Poyarkov contradicts his own statements. Here is his quotation from the press-conference of January 27, 2005 in Moscow, at the facility of the “Greens” party: "The good thing about the trapping system was that dogs were always afraid of the people. The trapping system is a brutal, primitive hunting strategy of vicious extermination. The dogs knew that was not to be touched, that barking will set off the chain of actions: there will be calls made, people will arrive and do the trapping. This was natural selection, but, to a greater extent, selection induced by teaching. Because, when the dogs see a neighbor being eliminated, they definitely fear. At present, it is no longer the case, there are no systems that would compensate that." Thus, in this quotation, A.D.Poyarkov asserts that the strategy of stray dog trapping, on the contrary, reduces aggressive behavior of stray dogs, because stray dogs, on the strength of the experience of trapped aggressive “neighbors”, learn how to behave peacefully towards humans and “know their place”. The current situation in Moscow characterized by escalation of stray dog aggression towards humans against the backdrop of the absence of the “experience of punishment” in stray dogs for manifestations of aggression towards man justifies the above quotation from A.D.Poyarkov)
(Commentary: first, there are no published true results of research to confirm the said thesis, and, second, the thesis runs afoul of the findings of several independent studies: by M.T.Makenova, V.A.Rybalko and A.Beck.)
(see: discussion of this thesis at the scientific conference “Problems of pet dog research”, April 14, 2006, RAS Severtsov IEEP).
2. A stray dog is a predator in relation to rat and other Muridae rodents, being a serious factor responsible for the decrease of the population of the latter.
(Commentary: first, there are no published true results of research to confirm the said thesis, and, second, the thesis runs afoul of the findings of several independent studies: by M.T.Makenova, V.A.Rybalko and A.Beck.)
(see: discussion of this thesis at the scientific conference “Problems of pet dog research”, April 14, 2006, RAS Severtsov IEEP).
3. Stray dogs constitute a natural ecological barrier in the way of penetration into urban environment of wild animals: foxes, wolves, etc. These reduce epizootic hazard to both man and pet dogs.
(Commentary: first, there are no published true results of research confirming that stray dogs “reduce epizootic hazard to both man and pet dogs ", and, second, stray dogs performing the functions of “natural ecological barrier”, eliminate many useful and particularly valuable ( including rare, vanishing, entered in the Red Data Books) species of wild animals. Thus, the aforesaid “natural ecological barrier” does an incommeasurably greater harm, than good from the standpoint of the natural regulator of the urban fauna species composition. However, the decisive argument against A.D.Poyarkov’s theses shall e incompatibility of free habitation of stray dogs with the exercise of the signed into law citizens’ rights to health and life protection and to friendly environment as well as with the RF federal legislation.)
(see: discussion of this thesis at the scientific conference “Problems of pet dog research”, April 14, 2006, RAS Severtsov IEEP).
Such strategy is ineffective, chaotic, non-differentiated, unscientific and brutal.
2. Strategy of total annihilation of stray dogs. Possible effects:
à) unpredictable outbreaks of proliferation of rodents of all descriptions, cats and crows,
b) inflow from the suburbs of wild animals,
c) increase of epizootic hazard,
d) social protest of population.
(Commentary: of the relations listed in clause (a) in the context of discussions at the Conference at the RAS Severtsov Instituite “Problems of pet dog research” of April 14, 2006, the most scientifically substantiated and recognized by the overwhelming majority of specialists that attended the Conference is only regulation (reduction) by stray dogs of the homeless cat population. However, it is this particular fact that contradicts the aims of “humane reduction of homeless dogs and cats”, proclaimed in the documents of Moscow Government as the ground for implementing the neutering program. At the same time, most experts at the Conference did not admit, to put it mildly, the regulating impact exerted by stray dogs on the population of rats and crows as an obvious fact, but rather, on the contrary, they share observations in favor of commensalism of rats relative to stray dogs.
Clauses (b) and (c), in the course of discussion at the RAS Severtsov Institute Conference “Problems of pet dog research failed to evoke support of the experts, too. Our organization, too has some reviews of experts, saying that the reverse is true.
And, finally, clause (d) social protest of population: in case of free habitation of a “population getting old” the notorious “social protest of population” triggered by growing numbers of stray dogs is by no mean smaller, but much greater than in the case of stray dog trapping.)
3. Strategy of conserving the population, population ageing and of thereby reducing the rate of proliferation.
This strategy appears most effective from the economic and ecological standpoints.
(Commentary: effectiveness of the strategy of “ageing population conservation” is impossible to validate from the ecological standpoint in view of serious adverse consequences of stray dog “ageing population” (growing number of affected stray dogs, extermination by stray dogs of valuable species of wild fauna, etc.). Therefore, it is simply absurd to raise, in such conditions, the question of both economic and ecological effectiveness of such a strategy.)
Comments are compiled by the site editor, December, 2006.