STRAY DOGS CONTROL PRACTICE IN RUSSIA
N.A. Danilov*, V.A. Rybalko*, L.L. Macevich*, S.B. Stepanov*
S.G. Klochko**, A.V. Petrova**, J.G. Shapovalova**
*- Realistic Animal Protection Movement, Russia
** - Realistic Animal Protection Movement, Ukraine
Common E-Mail: real-ap@yandex.ru
Web-site: http://www.real-ap.ru (in Russian)
1. The general overview of the situation in Russia
Stray dogs are common in Russia. In general, the number of stray dogs increased seriously about
20 years ago, due to the crisis in politics, economics & social sphere. Stray dogs can be found
both in cities & in the country.
The general approach to dog owning in Russia is similar to the western one. The dog is a popular
pet animal, besides, some dogs are used for utilitarian purposes. The strict data about owned and
unowned dog quantity is not available. Assumed there are no less than 10 million pet dogs in
Russia. The overwhelming majority of all dogs are owned dogs. Usually there are local
legislation: ownership responsibilities, «leash laws» & basic provisions concerning animal
management, husbandry and treatment.
Unowned dogs are usually regarded as a problem by the local authorities. Unowned dogs
supposedly usually make about not exceed 10-20 per cent of all dogs in a locality. Nevertheless,
there are serious problems concerning unowned dogs.
The population of stray dogs is heterogeneous. It is possible to single out several types of dogs’
dependence on people:
a) Owned free-roaming dogs. These dogs have got owners, but the owners let out to roam the
streets without control regularly or from time to time. Such dogs can be found mainly in the
country & in smaller towns. There are relatively few dogs of this type in large cities with blocks
of flats.
b) Unowned free-roaming dogs. Among them:
-stray dogs that live at the fenced territories & inside some buildings of various factories, parking
lots, construction areas etc. The dogs are fed by the employees but the employees do not control
the dogs’ behavior, nor prevent the dogs’ roaming around and do not prevent dogs' mating and
breeding.
- stray dogs that live in the streets. When there are not too many stray dogs, they remain single,
but if local authorities lose control over situation, the dogs gather in packs. They find food at
trash containers, beg food from passers-by. It is not unusual when some people begin to visit
these dogs to feed them more or less regularly. These people call themselves care-givers, but
they do not try to carry out any control over the dogs. Dogs of this type make the most numerous
type of stray dogs.
- feral dogs. Inhabit various territories not used by people, particularly in the suburbs. Do not get
food directly from people.
There is no national dog registry, but judging by the information from various cities & towns,
there are stray dogs in all of them. But the amount of dogs differs depending on the local
situation. From studies made in several cities, the dogs’ population density varies from 5 to more
than 100 stray dogs per square km. The least density is registered in some smaller towns in
multi-storey quarters with intensely working public animal control service - there are mainly
single stray dogs. The highest density can be found in industrial territories of middle & large
cities. These localities are inhabited by large packs, up to several tens of dogs. There are packs
also in the living areas of many large cities.
The origin of stray dogs also differs. Nevertheless, all the stray dogs in Russia are either exowned dogs, or their descents born already in the street. Ex-owned dogs usually prevail in
smaller towns, where also free-roaming owned dogs are rather typical. Ex-owned dogs can be
found in middle & large cities, too, but their proportion depends on the authorities’ loss of
control on the situation degree.
In those large cities where today the largest number of stray dogs is found, there also prevailed
ex-owned dogs some time ago. They were both deliberately thrown out into the street and lost by
accident. But with the loss of control by the authorities and with the lowering of the culture of
dog owning there appeared more stray dogs and they began to reproduce themselves already in
the street. In the cities where a large amount of dogs packs can be found, most dogs have never
been owned.
The pet overpopulation is very strong. Many people do not want to spay or neuter their pet dogs
due to false prejudices, for example, that spaying of animals is "against nature"; or because they
suppose it too expensive or troublesome. The unspayed owned animals are let out for a walk into
the streets without any control and thus intensely mate and breed uncontrollably. The owners kill
unwanted newborn puppies by cruel methods: drown in water or bury them alive. Also, some
owners abandon or dump 2-3-months-old puppies into the street.
Most people are worried about the situation with stray dogs, both because they pity these dogs &
because of the problems caused by the strays. Nevertheless, they do not understand that the
problem of stray animals is connected with pet overpopulation.
2. Pet legislation, registration, owner education and some other moments
In Russia, at the nationwide (federal) level, there is no compulsory government registration and
licensing of dogs, very poor voluntary identification of pets, no owner education, almost no
informing people about spay/neutering, no subsided spay\neutering schemes offered to people of
low incomes or have large number of animals, no control of breeding and sale. Professional
breeders have their own clubs, but these organizations are volunteer and cannot influence the
situation in general. At the nationwide level, there is no specific pet legislation. Russian Civil
Code only declares that the dogs and other domestic animals is the property of their owners, but
it does not provide dog registration. In veterinary legislation, there is the requirement to register
(but not to identify!) dogs for annual mandatory vaccination of dogs against rabies, but in
practice this is voluntary. As mentioned above, at the municipal level, some towns have "Rules
of pet control" (typically: dog leash rules, dog prohibited areas and dog fowling) but they are not
strictly enforced nor followed by owners.
3. Stray dogs control
Instead of an integrated complex approach to the problem (that is typical for Western countries),
in Russia in general much more primitive way of regulation is used. In very many cities and
towns (except Moscow and some other), the municipal services kill stray dogs directly on streets
2
("culling") using pneumatic guns which shoot "flying syringes" filled with curariform-like
muscle relaxant (neuromuscular blocker) drug (often it is suxamethonium chloride).
With regular use, this method even so constrains the growth of stray dogs population at a some
level which is lower that the "environment carrying capacity" and the threshold of the beginning
of serious conflicts. A number of cities is known (for example, Yaroslavl) where intensive stray
dog culling results in relatively small number of stray dogs (5-7 stray dogs per square km).
However, this method (culling) is very cruel, because curariform-like muscle relaxant drugs are
used alone, without adding any anesthetic or sedative drug. The dogs painfully die from asphyxia
in full consciousness. (It should be noted that appropriate schemes for humane euthanasia of
stray animals are in good access, in spite of some restrictions from «State Committee for Control
Over the Illegal Trafficking of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances», which prohibited
barbiturates.) There is also another important negative point, that is, that the animals are deprived
of any chance for re-homing or finding a new owner & home.
Besides its cruelty, such a primitive approach (culling) has the following important drawbacks:
a) this approach does not influence the sources of new stray dogs' (pet overpopulation and
dumping of unwanted animals, uncontrollable mating & reproduction of stray dogs that live at
closed territories of various factories, parking lots etc., and thus such dogs are not available for
culling)
b) because there is no holding period and facility, this limits the ability to catch owned freeroaming dogs and fine their owners, thus reducing various problems concerning owned freeroaming dogs, including their uncontrollable mating and reproduction
c) dogs culling causes very strong negative attitude of the many citizens, up to attacks on
employees of municipal services. Most citizens do not notify municipal services about
appearance of a new stray dog in their street (in many cases, because they do not want to feel
guilty for the dog’s painful death)
d) this primitive one-sided approach is highly vulnerable to the change of the situation. For
example, reduction of financial support causes an immediate increase of stray dogs population,
often quite sharp and fast. Such cases very often occur in small towns and in rural areas, as local
authorities do not consider the problem of dogs as a priority problem. There is quite a large
amount of stray dogs in communities with irregular culling or culling of low intensity.
These aforementioned factors do not allow to reduce the population of stray dogs in Russia
below a certain level.
e) moreover, barbaric dogs culling provokes some local animal protection groups to introduce
and push various rush mindless projects, which result in further deterioration of the situation and
sharp increase in cruelty level (see below about the attempts of stray dog CNR projects)
In some cities, however, there is a gradual change from direct dogs culling to creating
places/facilities for temporary keeping of the caught dogs, where the dogs will be kept for
several days. (This practice was common before, during the Soviet Union period, but about 15
years ago due to the economic and social crisis - there took place a change from catching dogs
alive to direct culling in the town environment). Among these cities - Yekaterinburg,
Chelyabinsk, Novosibirsk, Belgorod, Rostov-on-Don. But this process occurs locally and
spontaneously without any centralized control or regulation at the nationwide (federal) level.
3
There is an acute shortage of municipal shelters (except Moscow) for stray or abandoned
animals. The few private shelters that exist are unable to take the enormous number of stray,
abandoned and unwanted dogs and cats, puppies and kittens. Nevertheless, the number of
municipal (public) and private shelters is gradually increasing. There are the first attempts to
transfer to them the regulatory function of the dog population, but there is still a lack of
techniques and practical experience. There are no definite criteria of effectiveness. This process
is also taking place spontaneously without any centralized control at the nationwide (federal)
level.
4. Attempts of dogs CNR (catch-neutering-return) program
Activists of animal protection organizations are naive and share radical ideas. That is partly due
to their poor knowlege of other countries' practice. Some leading animal protection organizations
in Moscow and in other large towns share the radical ideology of animal rights (not animal
welfare, but animal rights!), and most of them regard euthanasia of healthy stray animals (even
aggressive) as absolute evil that should be eradicated/banned immediately. Therefore, there is
practically no influence on authorities with requirements to introduce humane euthanasia for
stray dogs instead of barbaric suffocation by curariform muscle relaxant drugs. If our activists
consider euthanasia of healthy animals as absolute evil, they certainly would not require more
humane euthanasia methods for stray animals.
The significant part of today's Russian animal protection groups are not capable to develop an
adequate global program for correcting our awful situation. The idea of C.N.R. (catch-neuterreturn) for stray dogs as a total alternative to any catch without return into the streets is popular
with our animal rights groups. They are against creating "open-admission" shelters for stray
animals. They believe that the terrible sufferings of abandoned and stray animals in the streets is
lesser evil than possibly shelter euthanasia of non-rehomed dogs.
Unlike common European, USA and Canadian practices, they suggests life-long kenneling of
aggressive dogs in shelters, and returning back of potentially adoptable non-aggressive animals
into the streets after designated holding period, despite such approach bring down re-homing
rate. This practice would work against rehoming of the dogs which once were owned as the
shelters inevitably would be overcrowded by non-adaptable animals.
Wide-scale introduction of CNR programs for stray dogs took place in several Russian cities
(Murmansk, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Moscow). Packs of stray dogs were declared as "a
necessary component of city environment, maintaining ecosystem balance" despite the wildlife
damage (in city forests) caused by strays. The longest epopee with stray dogs C.N.R. program
was in Moscow (2002-2008 years).
In Moscow, some "animal rights" organizations, including the well-known "Vita center" at 2002
year supported the ban on euthanasia of healthy stray dogs and simultaneously, provided C.N.R.
(catch-neutering-return) program for stray dogs (but stray cats passed by their attention). The
results of this rush adventure were horrible.
As we know, WSPA, RSPCA, OIE and ICAM (International Coalition for Animals Managenent)
recommended such projects only for countries with "Asian style" of dogs keeping ("unavoidable
homeless"), but not for countries with "European style" (if the majority of dog population have
owners).
4
That CNR program failed and the number of stray dogs increased with forming large packs. In
Moscow, the counting of stray dogs was carried out twice by the staff of "Severtsov Institute of
Ecology and Evolution" of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
According to the first counting (1996-1997 years), the Moscow stray dogs population had about
20000-21500 of stray dogs (before introducing the CNR project). According to the second
counting, in 2006 year (after 4 year of the CNR program practice), the Moscow stray dogs
population had about 26000-29000 of stray dogs and the proportion of neutered bitches reached
only 20-25% from all bitches in stray dogs population. The male/female ratio was changed, in
virtue of increasing of female percentage. Dogs' behavior has considerably changed after the
catch-without-return-into-the-streets was abandoned. Stray dogs have become bolder and more
daring and the number of unowned dog attacks sharply increased and exceed the number of bites
caused by owned dogs.
The failing of CNR program was caused by the following important reasons:
a) there was no attempt to control the source of the stray dog problem, moreover, because stray
animals were announced as something legal, the number of owners, abandoning/dumping their
animals or unwanted offsprings in areas where (as they think) the animals would receive some
care, increased (the sharp parallel with the CNR stray dog program in Greece and CNR stray cat
programs in some localities in USA and Italy);
b) the critically important CNR's effectivity level of 75-80% spayed dogs population was not
reached; when a total CNR program was in progress and stray dogs were declared as "a
necessary component of city environment", adequate control of budget money consumption is
very difficult;
c) "catching dogs without returning them into the street" was abandoned and as the number of
strays increased, citizens that used to feed stray animals were bring more and more food for
dogs, which resulted in increase in the carrying capacity of the city environment and increase in
number and survival of puppies of the dogs that had not yet been neutered; also, it stimulated
integration of single dogs in packs and integration of packs in larger packs. It was vicious circle:
as the number of strays increased, more food was brought to them, which resulted in further
increase in the number of strays.
Next, there was a quick increase of the number of stray dogs' attacks on people. During five
years (2002-2007) of CNR program realization, stray dogs killed at least four people in Moscow,
and bit more than 100000 Moscow citizens. Also, packs of stray dogs began hunting owned and
stray cats and killed a lot of them. Surveys have shown that tens of thousand stray and owned
cats were killed every year. Many of attacked cats were slowly dying in terrible pain for hours
long from penetrated wounds of abdomen by dogs' teeth. That was a real tragedy for street cats
caregivers, who often witnessed their cats being slaughtered by dogs. The privately financed
CNR schemes for stray cats failed as all the spayed cats were usually killed by the dog packs: no
matter, if the cats had been spayed or not. The street cats' fate during the dogs CNR program is
yet quite poorly outlined in the animal protection movements, but we feel it is an important
issue.
Conversely, the biotic relationship of stray dogs with rats was favorable to rodents in general.
Packs of stray dogs protected rats from cats (by mass killing the stray cats). Dogs hunted rats,
too, but their influence was negligible due to ability of rats to use underground cavities
inaccessible to dogs. Also, rats took advantage of the remains of food which street caregivers had
brought to stray dogs or the remains of food that the dogs obtained themselves by tearing the
garbage bags that they had pulled out from non-closed stationary garbage containers.
5
In 2005 year, the frightened citizens began to get rid of stray dogs by themselves, illegally killed
them often using very cruel methods, for example, by poisoning with rat poison and some
antituberculosis drugs. In addition, it was appeared and spreaded across Moscow illegal and
semi-legal stray dogs mass culling provided by private organisations. At the same time, sadists
felt free to kill stray dogs just for "fun" as they discovered an easy justification of their actions
that "they protect people and cats from stray dogs' attack".
Hereto, there is another side of the problem. It is the horrible tragedy of the people (very socially
unshielded, they are often single poor elderly people and disabled persons) patronizing stray
animals in the streets. When packs of stray dogs began to massacre stray cats, those people
began to take all the stray cats in the neighborhood home, into their own small flats - up to 50100 cats in small flats, which led to conflicts with neighbors and eviction of such people from
their flats. Also, with the increase in the stray dogs number, there appeared more street
caregivers, and many of them became emotionally attached to the stray dogs they fed, and
subsequently they got psychic trauma when CNR project was abandoned and Moscow
authorities returned to dog catching practices.
In April 2008, stray dogs killed one more man and Moscow authorities were forced to abandon
their CNR practice and implement catching without return. This has led to an obvious reduction
in the number of dogs for two years. However, animal rights organizations began powerful
clamour against stray dogs euthanasia. As the result of this activity, the Moscow authorities
decided not to euthanize dogs, but as a compromise, began building huge "no-kill" mega-shelters
to kennel for life all the catched stray dogs. These mega-shelters have size up to 4000-5000 dogs
on each such mega-shelter. However these shelters were quickly overfilled by enormous number
of catched dogs, and became hoarded. It was reported that significant number of dogs were
slowly dying for months from hunger, infections and congestion, and even due to fights and
cannibalism. There is a shortage of budget funds for maintenance of shelters with tens thousands
of dogs. So, the Moscow authorities are now considering the possibility of euthanasia
introducing for dogs that were not re-homed or re-claimed after the holding period (probably, 1745 days).
In other attempts of dogs CNR program (such cities as Saint Petersburg, Murmansk, Nizhny
Novgorod, Kazan), there is no reduction of stray dogs number. In some cities this approach also
resulted to abruptly deterioration of the situation (in complete analogy with Moscow dogs CNR
program), and also was abandoned by local authorities.
5. Our recommendations for Russia
We can say that an immediate ban of euthanasia of healthy animals is a daydream and results in
still more horrible tragedies. We are sure that further introducing of total CNR projects for stray
dogs is absolutely unacceptable for Russia. However, after all the dreadful events in Moscow,
activists of many animal rights organizations continue to request the total CNR programs for
stray dogs in nationwide scale (!). They are going to lobby a federal (i.e., nationwide) law that
will provide an immediate ban of the euthanasia of healthy animals.
Instead of risky ideas of "total stray dog CNR" and "immediate ban of euthanasia", our Welfare
group "Realistic Animal Protection" suggest a similar way to achieve animal welfare progress
which took place in the Western countries, for example, the United Kingdom. We develop the
idea of the other nationwide (federal) law, that should start the following complex program with
centralized control:
6
*The introduction of compulsory registration/licensing and identification of owner dogs and cats
and differential taxes for ownership of spayed and unspayed animals. Massive propagation of
spay/neutering by radio, TV and newspapers for eradication of false prejudices.
*The development of veterinary infrastructure and services for mass cheap spay and neutering of
owners' pets
*The reforming of municipal services everywhere: introduction of humane catching dogs alive
instead of culling them directly on streets, the creating a network of open-admission shelters for
stray, abandoned and unwanted dogs and cats, puppies and kittens across Russia. Introduction of
humane euthanasia instead of suffocation by curariform drugs
*The adequate use of the CNR method for strays, with serious restrictions: we propose to use
this method only as additional local method, but not as primary total method of work with stray
animals. For dogs we propose CNR only in enclosure areas, for exapmle, on factory territories.
For cats, CNR can be used much broader than for dogs, as cats cause less social conflicts.
Nikita A. Danilov (the world-wide-web coordinator and site administrator, Moscow, Russia)
Vladimir A. Rybalko (biologist, Petrozavodsk Society for the Protection of Animals,
Petrozavodsk, Russia)
Larysa L. Macevich (biologist, Kiev, Ukraine)
Sergey G. Klochko (biologist and zoopsychologist, Public Facility "Animal Shelter", Kiev,
Ukraine)
Stanislav B. Stepanov (the member of Movement, Moscow, Russia)
Asya V. Petrova (Kharkiv Society for the Protection of Animals "ZooAlliance", Kharkiv,
Ukraine)
Julia G. Shapovalova (Public utility company "The Companion Animals Treatement Center",
Kharkiv, Ukraine)
7