The Unsung Partners of Stray Dogs
- connect2783
- 4 days ago
- 11 min read
Why Animal Welfare Policies will fail without Citizen Engagement and Adoption?
This article builds on Stray Realities, our earlier inquiry into how the fragile institutional and governance capacity in India’s smaller cities often clashes with judicial mandates regarding stray dog management. Following that publication, we initiated a series of conversations with leading animal welfare practitioners (including the Kodaikanal Society for Protection and Care for Animals (KSPCA), Dharamsala Animal Rescue, Peepal Farm, and Animal Aid Unlimited, etc.) to understand what makes a policy truly implementable.
Their collective feedback has been incorporated in this arricle. Key insight was that judicial orders and municipal programs can provide a framework, but lasting outcomes lie in the hands of informed and engaged citizens. Drawing on experiences from smaller Indian cities and insights from animal welfare practitioners, it shows that adoption, community stewardship, and everyday citizen behaviour determine whether policies succeed or fail. The piece argues that without neighbourhood-level engagement—across feeding, sterilisation, waste management, and monitoring—judicial mandates risk remaining procedural rather than effective.
In the narrow lanes of Lucknow and the hills of Kodaikanal, a gradual shift is taking place in the way stray dogs are managed. Rather than relying on mass removal or ad hoc responses, these cities have adopted sustained, coordinated approaches that combine municipal programmes with community participation. These cities have discovered a foundational truth: when citizens move from being spectators of a problem to active partners in a solution, the urban stray reality begins to shift.
The “Bottom-Up” Proof: Small Cities, Big Impact
Lucknow provides a notable example of how sustained, citizen-driven efforts yielded measurable results long before the issue gained national attention. Since 2019, the city has achieved a staggering 84% reduction in its stray dog population. Over 15,000 residents from 475 neighbourhoods participated in workshops, meetings and training sessions, supported by organisations such as Humane World for Animals, enabling citizens to take ownership of the process. As a result, nearly 30% of the dogs brought to sterilisation centres were identified and reported by local residents (not dog-catchers in the traditional sense). These were the residents who understood that their involvement directly led to safer streets and healthier dog populations.
Similarly, Kodaikanal demonstrated how sustained civic participation, enabled by local NGOs and supported by the administration, can deliver lasting public health outcomes. Since 2017, the Kodaikanal Society for Protection and Care for Animals (KSPCA), working with Mission Rabies India and the city municipality, has led intensive anti-rabies vaccination and animal birth control programmes, helping the town record zero human rabies deaths since 2016. Residents have not been passive beneficiaries but active participants, through awareness drives, responsible feeding practices and ward-wise monitoring using a GPS-enabled mobile application which was developed by World Veterinary Service. This way, citizens help ensure that every dog is identified, vaccinated and tracked.
What matters most in making stray dog policies work?
Citizen behaviour at the neighbourhood level
Municipal funding and contracts
Reliable ABC and vaccination coverage
Waste management
Why Court Orders Alone Don’t Solve Street-Level Problems
The year 2025 has been a watershed for stray dog policy in India. On August 11, the Supreme Court adopted a strict Capture and Relocate stance, prioritising the removal of dogs from public spaces. On August 22, it shifted to a more humane Capture, Sterilise, and Release model, reaffirming the Animal Birth Control framework. On November 7, the Court introduced a narrowly defined Institutional Removal exception, allowing dogs to be removed from specific high-risk premises (such as hospitals, schools, bus stands, and railway stations) on a case-by-case basis. Together, these orders reflect a judiciary attempting to balance public safety concerns with the principles of established animal welfare law.
These directions matter, but they do not implement themselves. Removing dogs from a location without neighbourhood-level follow-up often produces the opposite of the intended effect. When food sources remain unmanaged, and no one monitors the area, new, unsterilised dogs move in, restarting the cycle of conflict and risk. Ultimately, court orders work only when neighbourhoods and residents make them work.
Understanding and Misunderstanding the Fear
Fear of dogs is natural, especially in urban areas where encounters are unpredictable. People may overestimate the danger, avoid dogs entirely, or react aggressively when confronted with them. Lack of knowledge about canine behaviour compounds this fear, leading to conflict and bite incidents.
Certain human actions (like running away, shouting, or swinging bags) trigger dogs’ chase or defensive instincts. Small, practical changes in behaviour can prevent incidents and reduce tension between dogs and residents.
Citizens should learn to read a dog's body language. For example, a dog guarding a litter is maternal, not aggressive. A dog barking at a newcomer is territorial, not menacing. Recognising postures such as an alert tail versus a threatening stance allows people to respond calmly, reducing risk and fear. Organisations like the KSPCA organise these knowledge-building sessions for communities.
Misconceptions and cultural beliefs may influence how people interact with dogs. Awareness campaigns addressing these beliefs help promote safe and humane practices, even if they are not directly related to bite prevention. Beliefs that rabies can be cured through faith alone, or that sterilisation is harmful or morally wrong, continue to undermine public health and population control efforts. Some campaigns, including those led by Dharamsala Animal Rescue, explicitly link responsible feeding with sterilisation, vaccination, and monitoring, emphasising that care without population management can unintentionally worsen conflict.
From Passive Feeding to Active Adoption
Perhaps the most underutilised tool in managing stray populations is Adoption. According to the State of Pet Homelessness Project (2024) report by Mars Petcare, nearly 71% of dogs in India (approximately 60.5 million) are homeless. Of these, only about 8 million are housed in shelters, while over 52.5 million live on the streets.
This gap is compounded by the severe shortage of government-run shelter infrastructure. For instance, Mumbai has an estimated 90,000 stray dogs but only eight municipal shelters, according to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). In Delhi, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) operates just 20 animal control centres (and no dedicated dog shelter) with a combined capacity of fewer than 5,000 dogs, against an estimated stray dog population of around one million. The mismatch is even starker in smaller cities. In Tiruchirappalli (Trichy), municipal estimates place the stray dog population at around 43,700, while the city has approved just four shelter facilities, primarily meant for dogs removed from schools, hospitals, and transit hubs rather than long-term housing. Despite nearly 30,000 dogs claimed to have been sterilised under the ABC programme, institutional shelter capacity remains negligible compared to the overall population.
In practice, the gap between population and infrastructure is absorbed by NGOs and informal citizen networks. Shelters are routinely treated as the default destinations for abandoned pups, injured dogs, and conflict cases. This model is collapsing under its own weight. With finite space, limited funding, and constant intake, adoption rates remain low. As a result, shelters become overcrowded, staff and resources are stretched thin, and animals that need urgent medical care are forced to compete for space with healthy but long-staying dogs.
The Indie Advantage
A fundamental shift is therefore required in how adoption is framed, specifically toward the adoption of Indie dogs (native Indian breeds). With a genetic lineage shaped over thousands of years, Indies typically have stronger immunity, lower maintenance needs, and far greater resilience than many foreign breeds. They are naturally adapted to India’s climate, streets, and increasingly, to compact urban apartment living.
Cities that recognise this advantage are moving away from viewing Indies as “strays” and instead treating them as community dogs (animals whose stability depends on neighbourhood stewardship rather than institutionalisation). Evidence of this shift is already visible. In Pune, citizen-led adoption camps that exclusively feature Indie dogs report consistently high adoption rates, with nearly half of the dogs showcased finding homes. Volunteers and adopters attribute this success to peer learning: stories shared within neighbourhoods and on social media of Indies thriving in apartments, accompanying owners on long treks, or living comfortably with disabilities.
A similar shift is visible in Hyderabad, where municipal adoption drives focused on Indie puppies have seen strong public turnout and high on-the-spot adoption rates. Importantly, the role of the municipality here is catalytic rather than directive; providing a platform, while citizen preference generates demand.
In Kodaikanal, Vera de Jong and George Penner have converted their home into a rescue and rehabilitation space for street dogs, performing urgent surgeries, post-operative care, and fostering dozens of dogs annually.
Adoption Beyond the Household
For many citizens, adoption does not always mean bringing a dog into the home. It also encompasses collective care, shared responsibility, and long-term familiarity at the neighbourhood level. Bengaluru’s neighbourhood-based Canine Squads offer a clear illustration of this model in action. These hyper-local, citizen-led groups collectively track, feed, vaccinate, sterilise, and monitor dogs (mostly Indies) within defined areas. Each dog is known, named, and accounted for. This familiarity reduces fear, enables early reporting of illness or injury, and facilitates timely sterilisation, often the most significant operational bottleneck for municipal systems. The outcome is healthier dogs, fewer conflicts, and quieter streets achieved through decentralised, citizen-driven action.
Viewed systemically, adoption (whether formal or community-based) functions as a strategic pressure-release mechanism in stray dog management. Every dog adopted into a home frees up shelter capacity for animals that genuinely require emergency medical care. Community adoption achieves the same effect by stabilising local dog populations and reducing intake pressures.
Dehradun illustrates how community ownership can work at scale. Nearly 300 residential societies in the city have formally taken responsibility for ensuring humane coexistence between dogs and humans. These communities maintain feeding points, ensure vaccinations, support sterilisation, and act as first responders during conflicts or emergencies. Notably, 18.6% of all dogs sterilised in the city since 2019 were brought in through direct community involvement. This implies that adoption, in its broadest sense, is less about charity and more about shared civic responsibility.
NGO as Bridges
India’s dog management framework formally rests with municipal governments through Animal Birth Control (ABC) and vaccination programmes. In practice, however, a significant implementation gap exists. Municipalities often contract or reimburse NGOs for surgeries or medicines, but these payments cover only a fraction of the real operational costs. Salaries for trained staff, ambulances, post-operative care, land or rent, data systems, and community outreach are largely unfunded.
RTI data from Chandigarh revealed that in some government-run veterinary shelters, up to 96% of the annual budget is consumed by staff salaries, leaving less than 4% for medicine and food. In Delhi, NGOs like the Animal India Trust and others effectively run sterilisation programmes on the ground; however, the government's allocation of roughly ₹1,000 per dog falls far short of the actual costs, which are significantly higher per sterilisation when medicines, post-operative care, and logistics are factored in.
The real value of NGOs lies in acting as capacity builders and connectors, rather than substitutes for government or permanent shelters. Many organisations function as centres of technical expertise, training veterinarians in high-volume sterilisation, establishing humane handling protocols, managing post-operative care, and maintaining vaccination standards. Increasingly, they are also training local residents and Self-Help Groups to undertake critical, skilled tasks, including identifying unsterilised dogs, coordinating transport to ABC centres, supporting recovery, maintaining local dog records, managing feeding points, and acting as first responders during conflicts or emergencies.
KSPCA in Kodaikanal partners with residents and volunteers to vaccinate, neuter, and document street dogs. With municipal reimbursement covering only a portion of costs, the NGO leverages donations and citizen participation to achieve coverage goals and educate the community
When paired with citizen-led adoption and community care, this model transforms animal welfare from a reactive, shelter-heavy system into a shared civic responsibility. Adoption (formal or informal) becomes a pressure-release mechanism: each dog adopted into a home frees up shelter space for emergency cases, and every neighbourhood that actively monitors and cares for its dogs reduces the long-term institutional burden.
The Invisible Drivers: Waste and Urban Geography
Free-ranging dogs do not distribute themselves randomly across cities. They concentrate where food is predictably available (around open garbage dumps, roadside eateries, informal markets, and poorly managed waste collection points). In many Indian neighbourhoods, especially high-footfall areas such as hospitals, railway stations, and bus stands, unmanaged organic waste quietly determines where dogs gather and how many a locality can sustain. Ironically, these are the same high footfall areas the Supreme Court’s November order seeks to clear.
This is where the concept of carrying capacity becomes critical. A neighbourhood’s carrying capacity, in this context, refers to the number of dogs it can support based on the availability of food and shelter. When waste is left exposed, that capacity rises, leading to higher dog density and, in turn, more frequent human–dog interactions and conflicts. Conversely, when organic waste is secured and food sources are regulated, dog populations stabilise and disperse naturally.
Citizens play a central role in shaping this carrying capacity. Simple, coordinated actions (such as ensuring garbage bins are covered, preventing vendors from discarding food scraps onto streets, and holding municipal services accountable for timely waste collection) directly influence dog congregation patterns. Seen this way, the most impactful animal-welfare outcomes in a neighbourhood may stem less from enforcement and more from residents who understand how waste, geography, and behaviour interact to shape coexistence.
A New Social Contract for our Streets
As is evident, the stray dog issue is not merely an animal problem; it is a challenge shaped by human behaviour, urban waste practices, and collective responsibility. Much of the conflict we see today (barking packs, chasing incidents, dog bites, and disputes over territory) emerges where compassion, fear, and misinformation collide without guidance. Court orders and municipal action alone cannot resolve these everyday realities.
Across Indian cities, arguments and even court cases now revolve around the rights of street dogs versus public safety. At the heart of these disputes lies a thin but critical line between compassion and misguided compassion. Feeding a dog without ensuring sterilisation, vaccination, or monitoring may keep it alive in the short term, but it often worsens long-term outcomes; for citizens, for neighbourhoods, and for the dogs themselves.
Equally damaging are entrenched misconceptions as were shared by Dharamsala Animal Rescue team with us. Beliefs that rabies can be cured through faith alone, or that a female dog must have one litter for good luck, continue to obstruct sterilisation efforts and delay medical care. So does resistance to sterilising owned or semi-owned dogs, many of whom are allowed to roam freely and contribute directly to street populations. The absence of widespread education on responsible pet ownership (including registration, vaccination, sterilisation, and the simple but crucial principle that dogs should never be abandoned) remains one of the system’s biggest failures.
A stray dog survives on two basic resources: food and shelter. In most cities, both are supplied unintentionally through open garbage, food waste, and informal feeding. When food availability increases without parallel population control, reproduction accelerates. This is why feeding cannot exist in isolation. Community feeders and welfare groups must establish a fixed number of dogs they care for, support sterilisation, avoid feeding newly arriving dogs, and collaborate with neighbours to prevent the formation of unstable packs that often trigger conflict.
The act of care, therefore, does not end at feeding. It extends to education, coordination, and accountability, explaining why dogs are being sterilised, why waste must be managed, why abandonment is harmful, and how small human actions influence animal behaviour. In the absence of fully functional municipal systems, this shared civic stewardship becomes essential.
The most effective solutions will not emerge solely from courtrooms or enforcement drives. They will take shape in neighbourhood WhatsApp groups that track vaccinations, in resident associations that coordinate sterilisation and waste management, in schools that teach children how to interact safely with dogs, and in communities that understand that coexistence requires effort from everyone.
The Unsung Partner in this entire journey is the citizen. Through empathy, vigilance, and adoption, residents play a central role in shaping safer streets and healthier dog populations. By prioritising education, community stewardship, and shared responsibility over relocation or culling, our cities can move from conflict to sustainable, humane coexistence. The question, then, is not whether this is possible, but whether we, as citizens, are ready to participate.
Note: We invite animal welfare organisations, veterinarians, municipal partners, and researchers to share comments and feedback on the arguments presented here. Insights from practice, data, and local experience will help refine future research and contribute to approaches that are more practical, implementable, and beneficial for India’s small and mid-sized cities.
Research Team: Rohit Bhatt and Tarun Sharma