Editorial: Bite versus bark

CHENNAI: In another episode highlighting the risks posed by aggressive stray dogs in Tamil Nadu, a four-year-old boy died of injuries sustained in the aftermath of a stray dog attack in Ranipet. The incident transpired at Ganapathipuram village near Arakkonam town, where residents reported four cases of stray dog bites to the police on the same day. If confirmed, this would be the latest case of a rabies-linked death this year – the State had already recorded 22 rabies deaths till June, which is more than the 18 fatalities reported in the whole of last year.

Per official data, there were 2,42,782 dog bite cases and 22 rabies deaths reported till June 2024. Last year, Tamil Nadu reported 4,41,804 dog bite cases and 18 deaths. Residents of densely-populated regions with free-range strays are now apprehensive of the toll from rabies breaching the five-year-high threshold of 28 fatalities recorded in 2022.

The despair of those affected by such incidents is offset by a recent Supreme Court ruling which concluded a 15-year-old case called Animal Welfare Board of India & Anr Versus People for Elimination of Stray Troubles & Ors. This was otherwise known as the All India Stray Dogs case or AWBI vs PEST. The apex court ruled that “Under all circumstances, there cannot be any indiscriminate killing of canines, and the authorities have to take action in terms of the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislations in place.” While the judgement had been lauded in some quarters, it has also invited brickbats on account of failing to address the gravity of the situation.

The crux of the case was whether municipal and local authorities were permitted to wantonly cull stray dogs to limit the stray population, eliminate rabies as well as prevent man-animal conflict. There was also an argument to be made on account of local bodies following the WHO-backed scientific methodology of sterilisation, which can help achieve these objectives. It is noteworthy that the State and Municipal laws authorise stray-dog culling while the Central legislation i.e. the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001, strictly prohibit killing, and mandates the scientific solution of sterilisation as the only way out.

So, does it make sense to kill strays to control rabies and prevent mauling-related deaths? The WHO’s Expert Consultation on Rabies, which met in Geneva in 2004, advocated sterilisation as the only effective and humane mode of regulating stray populations. This was backed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, which had previously admitted that culling had no impact on the populace. And they had the numbers to back their findings — between 1984-1994, the BMC culled 4.5 lakh stray dogs while incurring a cost upwards of Rs 2 cr. But there was no evidence to prove its efficacy.

Such arguments are falling on deaf ears, even in the so-called first world economies. Recently, in Turkey, legislators approved a law aimed at removing millions of stray dogs, estimated to be around 4 mn, from its streets. The law, which allows some stray animals to be euthanised, has been dubbed as the ‘massacre law’ on account of a clause that calls for the rounding up of even healthy and unaggressive animals. The new legislation requires municipalities to collect them in shelters to be vaccinated, neutered and spayed before making them available for adoption. But there is the question of where cash strapped urban local bodies would find the money to build the necessary shelters — something that India is no stranger to.