In bustling cities across India, the streets have their own unofficial citizens — stray dogs. They dart through traffic, nap on sunny corners, and follow the scent of food with quiet determination. For some, they’re loyal friends; for others, they’re a cause for concern. And in recent times, stray dog management has become a pressing public issue, sparking debates around safety, welfare, and the best way forward.
While headlines often focus on emotional reactions, a deeper look reveals this is, at its heart, a risk management challenge — one that demands balance between human safety, animal welfare, operational feasibility, and financial sustainability.
The conversation has been reignited by recent directives to relocate stray dogs to shelters. While intended to address public safety, such an approach raises important questions about long-term effectiveness and unintended consequences.
Why Stray Dogs Are a Risk Management Issue
When we think about risk management, the term often conjures images of corporate boardrooms or industrial safety audits. But on the streets, risk plays out in ways just as real and measurable.
The risks around stray dogs fall into five key categories:
- Public Health Risks – In India, about 18,000 – 20,000 people die annually due to rabies which accounts for 36% of global rabies deaths (World Health Organization). Bites, particularly among children and the elderly, create safety concerns.
- Financial Risks – Building and running shelters for hundreds of thousands of dogs could cost hundreds of crores annually.
- Operational Feasibility Risks – Moving thousands of dogs in a short time requires massive infrastructure and manpower.
- Animal Welfare Risks – Overcrowded shelters can lead to stress, aggression, and disease outbreaks among dogs.
- Community Relations Risks – Strategies that ignore public sentiment can trigger backlash, legal challenges, and resistance.
In other words, stray dog management isn’t just about safety — it’s about making a decision that works operationally, financially, socially, and ethically over the long run.
The Two Main Approaches — and How They Compare
The two most discussed approaches are mass sheltering and the Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme involving sterilisation and vaccination.
The table below compares these approaches through a risk lens:
Risk Matrix: Comparing Strategies for Stray Dog Management
| Risk Factor | Mass Sheltering (SC Directive) | ABC Programme (Sterilisation + Vaccination) |
|---|---|---|
| Public Health Risk (Rabies, bites) | Medium–High – “Vacuum effect” can lead to entry of unvaccinated strays; shelters can also become disease hotspots | Low – Maintains vaccinated, sterilised territorial dogs; herd immunity effect |
| Animal Welfare Risk | High – Stress, overcrowding, poor living conditions, disease outbreaks | Low – Dogs remain in familiar environment with reduced aggression |
| Operational Feasibility Risk | High – Huge infrastructure, manpower, and budget needed; difficult to execute in 8 weeks | Medium–Low – Uses existing NGOs, municipal teams, and scalable resources |
| Financial Risk | High – Annual costs can run into hundreds of crores for food, shelter, vet care | Low–Medium – Primarily one-time cost per dog for sterilisation and vaccination |
| Community Relations Risk | Medium–High – Potential backlash from animal lovers and NGOs; legal challenges | Low – Promotes community participation and awareness |
| Sustainability Risk | High – Once shelter capacity maxes out, problem resurfaces | Low – Permanent reduction in street dog population over time |
Key takeaway from the risk matrix:
- Mass sheltering can deliver immediate visual change but comes with high operational risk, financial risks, and welfare risks.
- ABC programmes take longer to show visible results but are more sustainable, cost-effective, and less disruptive.
The “Vacuum Effect” – An Overlooked Risk
One of the most important but lesser-known risks in stray dog management is the vacuum effect. When you remove sterilised, vaccinated dogs from an area, unvaccinated dogs from outside territories often move in to fill the gap. This means:
- Vaccination coverage drops.
- Dog fights increase as new animals establish dominance.
- Rabies risk can rise instead of fall.
This is why the World Health Organisation (WHO) and multiple animal welfare bodies recommend sterilisation and vaccination in situ rather than relocation as a primary strategy.
Global Lessons in Managing Stray Populations
This challenge isn’t unique to India. Cities worldwide have wrestled with stray dog populations — with varying degrees of success.
- Turkey – Istanbul’s municipal government runs an extensive programme of vaccinating, sterilising, and releasing stray dogs back to their original territories. The city also provides public feeding stations and mobile veterinary clinics. This has helped stabilise populations while keeping rabies cases low.
- Nepal – Kathmandu’s community dog programme saw a 70% reduction in rabies cases after sustained ABC campaigns over a decade.
- Romania – A shift from culling to sterilisation-based approaches reduced stray dog numbers in Bucharest while avoiding public backlash.
In each case, the common thread is long-term planning over quick fixes.
Public Perception and Community Engagement
Public attitude is one of the most influential factors in stray dog management success. Without citizen buy-in:
- Sterilised dogs may be harmed or relocated by locals who misunderstand the process.
- Vaccination coverage can drop if community feeders and residents aren’t supportive.
A community-driven approach turns residents from passive observers into active partners. This can mean:
- Training citizens on bite prevention.
- Encouraging responsible feeding practices.
- Promoting early reporting of aggressive behaviour or suspected rabies cases.
Risk Management Beyond the Dogs
Stray dog management isn’t just about the dogs themselves — it’s about the systems that interact with them.
A comprehensive risk assessment and management strategy might include:
- Emergency Response Systems – A 24/7 helpline for bite incidents linked to ABC databases for targeted intervention.
- Data Mapping – GIS-based tracking of dog populations, sterilisation coverage, and vaccination rates.
- Stakeholder Collaboration – Partnerships between municipal bodies, NGOs, veterinary associations, and citizen groups.
- Legislative Alignment – Ensuring strategies comply with animal protection laws and public health mandates.
Innovative Ideas for the Future
Risk management thrives on innovation — and technology can play a role here.
Some forward-thinking possibilities:
- Smart Collars – GPS-enabled collars for sterilised dogs to monitor movement and prevent re-capture.
- Drone Surveillance – Mapping hotspots for dog populations to optimise sterilisation drives.
- Mobile Vaccination Units – Bringing services to the dogs instead of relocating them.
These tools can make ABC programmes more efficient, trackable, and scalable.
Balancing Safety and Compassion
A neutral, risk-based view acknowledges that:
- Public safety matters — and reducing bite incidents is a legitimate goal.
- Animal welfare matters — and dogs are sentient beings whose stress and suffering must be minimised.
- Practical feasibility matters — and the best solution is one the city can actually implement within budget and resources.
A sustainable plan is one that reduces risks on all sides, not just shifts them from people to animals or vice versa.
While there is ongoing debate on the most effective way to address stray dog challenges, it is important to recognise that several government-led initiatives have already laid the groundwork for humane and risk-aware management. These initiatives form the policy backbone on which future improvements can be built.
Good Risk Management Initiatives by the Government for Stray Dogs So Far
- Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 & 2023 Amendments – These frameworks laid the foundation for humane management through sterilisation and vaccination, making India one of the few countries with a nationwide legal approach.
- National Rabies Control Programme (NRCP) – A government-led initiative under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare that works with states for rabies prevention through large-scale stray dog vaccination, hotspot mapping, and public awareness. It uses mobile vet units and targeted campaigns to reduce disease risk in high-incidence areas.
- Public Awareness Programs – Initiatives like community workshops, bite-prevention campaigns in schools, and government-funded IEC (Information, Education, and Communication) materials have worked to promote coexistence and safety.
These efforts, while not perfect, reflect a structured approach to risk management that blends legal, medical, and community-based strategies. Strengthening and scaling these measures—rather than replacing them entirely—may offer the most sustainable path toward safer streets and healthier dog populations.
Conclusion – The Risk-Managed Middle Path
When managing a public safety issue like stray dogs, the temptation is to focus on visible, immediate change. But risk management teaches us to look deeper: to ask what happens not just this month, but five years from now.
Urban leaders, NGOs, and communities must treat stray dog management as an integrated risk challenge — one that demands data, patience, and collaboration. The solution lies not in extreme measures, but in balanced ones that protect both public health and animal welfare for the long run.
The evidence — both local and global — points to scaled-up ABC programmes as the lower-risk, higher-return path. By combining sterilisation, vaccination, public engagement, and smart monitoring, cities can:
- Reduce rabies and bite incidents.
- Maintain herd immunity in street dog populations.
- Avoid overcrowded shelters and high recurring costs.
- Keep communities and animals safer, healthier, and more harmonious.
Ultimately, compassionate coexistence isn’t just an ethical choice — it’s a practical, risk-managed strategy for modern cities.
