Public attitudes towards free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) and management methods in Qazvin Province, Iran

Introduction: There is much debate about the management of free-ranging domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in rural environments and protected areas of Iran. This includes different members of the public and decision-makers in Qazvin Province in north-central Iran, where there has been a sharp increase in complaints about the 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.

Materials & Methods: In this study, we asked a focus group of 115 village council members from 98 selected villages in Qazvin Province to share their knowledge and experience about free-ranging dogs and potential management solutions. We analysed the resulting data using qualitative methods (inductive approach) and fitted a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) to quantify village-level determinants of complaints.

Results: In total, 79.6% of respondents (86 representatives from 78 villages) identified free-ranging dogs as a problem to residents’ safety and livelihood in their villages. Problem with free-ranging dogs were reported from human settlements inside or in periphery of five out of six 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 the local wildlife. The probability of complaints by the respondents about free-raging dogs increased with increase in human population size (median and 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] limits of slope βpopulation = 1.3, 0.2 – 2.7), 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 as a management solution. 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 the Iranian wildlife is increasingly challenging. Education and awareness efforts can reduce the negative impact 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 in our study area is improving waste management and constantly reducing the dog population size through removing individuals without owners from the population by non-lethal methods, including sterilization, vaccination, and transfer to dog shelters. Given the diverse community of stakeholders, participatory decision-making is required to manage free-ranging dog populations in rural environments and protected areas of Iran.