Making scapegoats of stray dogs would be cruel and counter-productive
A section of “wildlife enthusiasts” have declared war on stray dogs, demanding that all of them found in the forests should be killed for the danger they (allegedly) pose to wild animals. The assumption underlying their demand recalls the famous saying in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Less equal animals will, therefore, have to be killed to save the “more equal” ones. And, of course, “wildlife enthusiasts” alone have the right to decide which animals are less equal and, hence, have to be slaughtered.
The media offensive that seems to be part of the campaign quotes several wildlife experts to prove that stray dogs are a menace to wild animals. It does not occur to them that such individuals may not be disinterested parties and anger and prejudice against stray dogs can colour their judgement. One expert, who describes himself as a lover of dogs, but of pets and not strays, is quoted as saying, “In Mumbai, we even have a Stray Dog Welfare Association, populated with bored housewives who have nothing else to do except feeding biscuits to stray dogs. They arrogantly think that they are superior human beings and doing wonderful things by giving pricey biscuits or ‘chappatis’ to dogs.” He describes stray dog “activists” as people who have come to be known as “bunny hugging antis [aunties?]”
This is the language of anger and sarcasm, not of rational discourse. Hence, however eminent the persons may be, his statements in the present context cannot be regarded as objective. Media reports cite examples like that of a dog chasing away a wild boar or a pack of dogs attacking a neelgai or dogs menacing sarus crane chicks in Haryana’s Sonepat district or playing havoc with sambar fawns in Shiwalik jungles. India being a huge country, it is always possible to pick up such instances here there. But these do not prove that stray dogs are the principal threat to wildlife everywhere. Lorries and trains running through forests pose a far greater threat.
Besides, killing stray dogs will serve absolutely no purpose. Dogs come into forests from the neighbouring villages and will continue to do so as long as the villages are there. Shifting such villages will help in reducing the number of dogs coming in but such a course is neither politically and legally feasible nor desirable. Villagers can be, and often are, important sources of information about the activities of poachers—assuming, of course, that forest officials are responsive.
Remarkably, two recent newspaper reports which have stridently demanded the killing of all stray dogs entering forests, are silent about the threat poachers pose to wild animals, which is any time much more severe than any that any pack of stray dogs can. If the silence is deafening, the seeming lack of awareness of the fact that ill-conceived and vituperative attacks on stray dogs and those caring for them, such as one finds in the reports, is liable to divert attention from the all-important issue of countering poaching!
It can be nobody’s case that nowhere do stray dogs menace wildlife. But they are by no means a major cause and laying an entirely lopsided stress on them and getting hysterical and resorting to harsh rhetoric, will only provoke controversy and divert attention from the real tasks at hand. What is needed is a comprehensive approach involving those who live and work in forests, NGOs concerned respectively with stray dogs and wild life, and Central and State agencies dealing with animal welfare and wildlife protection, to work out a solution that is effective, humane and fair to all.
Hiranmay Karlekar