Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jun 19;10(6):1061.
doi: 10.3390/ani10061061.

Evaluation of a Dog Population Management Intervention: Measuring Indicators of Impact

Affiliations

Evaluation of a Dog Population Management Intervention: Measuring Indicators of Impact

Gemma C Ma et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

Dogs are important companions to people but can also present challenges to health and safety of communities if their populations are not effectively managed. Dog population management (DPM) is often undertaken by individual dog owners; however, some communities require additional DPM interventions, especially when veterinary services are unavailable or underutilised. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a DPM intervention conducted in 13 communities between September 2016 and November 2019 and assessed the utility of routinely collected data-program metrics and secondary data collected by local governments-to measure indicators of impacts. The intervention resulted in significant increases in the proportion of dogs presenting that were microchipped and surgically sterilised in participating communities. The intervention also resulted in significant reductions in dog attack incidents and euthanasia of dogs in council pounds in communities that participated for three or more years. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of DPM interventions is critical to determine if impacts are being achieved. This study demonstrates the potential benefits of a DPM intervention for community safety and dog welfare and highlights the utility of routinely collected data. We also suggest benchmarks for indicators of community engagement to guide planning and monitoring of similar interventions.

Keywords: dog; dog bite; dog population management; euthanasia; evaluation; impact; monitoring.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

G.C.M. and A.M.W. are employed as veterinarians by RSPCA NSW. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Age distribution of dogs presented to the RSPCA Indigenous Community Companion Animal Health Programs in New South Wales, Australia between September 2016 and November 2019: (a) overall; (b) by neuter status.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Proportion of dogs presenting to an Indigenous Community Companion Animal Health Program (ICCAHP) in NSW, Australia between September 2016 and November 2019 that had previously been microchipped (solid line) and were already surgically sterilised (broken line) over four consecutive years in Community 7. (b) The proportion of dogs presented to the ICCAHP in Community 7 that were attending the ICCAHP for a second, third and fourth year.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Total dog attack incidents per 1000 population for: (a) the whole of New South Wales (NSW); (b) the whole of regional NSW. The * indicates timing of council amalgamations that affected 39 of 152 LGAs in NSW, including one LGA containing a community included in the study (LGA 6).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Council pound statistics on total number of dogs admitted, number of dogs released to their owners and total number of dogs euthanased per 1000 population for: (a) the whole of New South Wales (NSW); (b) for the whole of regional NSW. The * indicates timing of council amalgamations which affected 39 of 152 LGAs in NSW, including one LGA containing a community included in the study (LGA 6).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Total dog attack incidents per 1000 population for Local Government Areas (LGAs) participating in a dog health intervention, the RSPCA Indigenous Community Companion Animal Health Program (ICCAHP), for three or more years: (a) LGA 1; (b) LGA 2; (c) LGA 8. Black arrows indicate the timing of ICCAHPs. The broken yellow line indicates the average annual dog attack incidence for regional NSW (1.0 per 1000 population). N.B. Data between 2014–2015 and 2017–2018 was not available for LGA 2
Figure 6
Figure 6
Number of dogs euthanased by council pounds per 1000 population for Local Government Areas (LGA) participating in a dog health intervention, the RSPCA Indigenous Community Companion Animal Health Program (ICCAHP), for three or more years: (a) LGA 1; (b) LGA 2; (c) LGA 8. Black arrows indicate the timing of ICCAHPs. The broken yellow line indicates the average number of dogs euthanased for regional NSW (1.3 per 1000 population).
Figure 7
Figure 7
(a) Total number of dogs admitted, and euthanased at the council pound per 1000 population; and (b) number of dog attack incidents per 1000 population for one Local Government Area (LGA 7) until the year prior to participating in a dog health intervention, the RSPCA Indigenous Community Companion Animal Health Program (ICCAHP). N.B. Data on dog attack incidents was not available before 2015–2016.

References

    1. Ting J.W., Yue B.Y.T., Tang H.H.F., Rizzitelli A., Shayan R., Raiola F., Rozen W.M., Hunter-Smith D. Emergency department presentations with mammalian bite injuries: Risk factors for admission and surgery. Med. J. Aust. 2016;204:114. doi: 10.5694/mja15.00653. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smout F., Schrieber L., Speare R., Skerratt L.F. More bark than bite: Comparative studies are needed to determine the importance of canine zoonoses in Aboriginal communities. A critical review of published research. Zoonoses Public Health. 2017;64:495–504. doi: 10.1111/zph.12354. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hampson K., Coudeville L., Lembo T., Sambo M., Kieffer A., Attlan M., Barrat J., Blanton J.D., Briggs D.J., Cleaveland S., et al. Estimating the global burden of endemic canine rabies. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015;9:1–20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003709. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization WHO Expert Consultation on Rabies: Second Report. [(accessed on 18 May 2020)];2013 Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/85346/9789240690943_eng.... - PubMed
    1. Ward M.P. Review of Rabies Epidemiology and Control in South, South East and East Asia: Past, Present and Prospects for Elimination. Zoonoses Public Health. 2012;59:51–467. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2012.01489. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources