علوم محیطی (Jun 2024)
Public Attitudes Towards Free-Ranging Dogs (Canis familiaris) and Management Methods in Qazvin Province, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: There is much debate about the management of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in rural environments and protected areas of Iran. One example is Qazvin Province in north-central Iran, where there has been a steady increase in conflicts between different socioeconomic groups of the public about free-ranging dogs. The relationship between people and free-ranging dogs shapes the impact of these domestic carnivores on wildlife and the human environment. Therefore, understanding residents’ attitudes and interactions between humans and free-ranging dogs can provide insights into the extent of the conflict and propose alternative management interventions that are locally feasible. Material and Methods: In this study, we asked a focus group of 115 village council members from 98 villages across Qazvin Province to share their knowledge and experience of living with free-ranging dogs and management solutions. We used an exploratory questionnaire with two open-ended questions focusing on (1) whether there is free-ranging dog-human conflict in each village, (2) risks associated with living with free-ranging dogs in rural areas, and (3) appropriate intervention methods. We analysed the resulting data using a qualitative social science approach and fitted a generalized linear mixed model to quantify village-level determinants of complaints. Results and Discussion: In total, 74% of respondents (86 representatives from 78 villages) identified free-ranging dogs as a problem to residents’ safety and livelihood. Problems with free-ranging dogs were reported from human settlements inside four out of five protected areas in Qazvin Province. Transmission of diseases and parasites (34.3%) and fear of dog bites and attacks (11.1%) were the most common perceived risks associated with free-ranging dogs. Only one respondent felt the need to control free-ranging dogs to reduce their impact on wildlife. The probability of complaints by the respondents about free-ranging dogs increased with an increase in human population size (median and 95% Bayesian credible interval limits of slope βpopulation = 1.3, 0.2 – 2.7), the extent of human settlement areas (βsettlement = 1.1, 0.1 – 2.7), and distance from protected areas (βprotected = 0.8, 0.2 – 1.8) in their villages. Over 50% of the respondents stated that either there is no solution (30.4%) or there is no major conflict with free-ranging dogs that would require an alternative management strategy (25.2%). Only 26.1% of the respondents preferred lethal control measures. The rest of the respondents preferred non-lethal control measures, with reducing food available (13.9%) and trap-and-release to a new site (10.4%) as the most popular alternatives. Conclusion: Designing and implementing management interventions that are well-accepted by the public and minimize the negative impact of free-ranging dogs on Iranian wildlife is increasingly challenging. Education and awareness efforts can reduce the negative impacts of free-ranging dogs, but they cannot replace the need for active management interventions. The most effective methods to minimize the impact of free-ranging dogs that would be well-accepted by the public are improving waste management and constantly reducing the dog population size through removing individuals without owners from the population by non-lethal methods, including sterilization and transfer to dog shelters. Given the diverse community of stakeholders, participatory decision-making is required to manage free-ranging dog populations in rural areas of Iran.
Keywords
