Threat by feral dogs to fauna and humans in NE India

Kumar, A., & Paliwal, R. (2015). Feral dogs of Spiti Valley, Himachal Pradesh: an emerging threat for wildlife and human life. Current Science, 108(10), 1799-1800.

This article discusses the threat and loss to wildlife, along with the damages in the livelihood of livestock farmers in Spiti Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India due to feral dogs. It is suggested that feral dogs are the most prominent threat to their livestock which are usually attacked by the dogs during the night. Despite the damages, the villagers never harm the animals owing to their Buddhist culture and peaceful nature. The Himalayan fox (Vulpes vulpes montana), Woolly hare (Lepus oiostolus), and Blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur) are the most attacked, harassed and chased by the feral dogs. Population control measures and surgical sterilization are recommended strategies in controlling their growing population.

Mobility of deers and their arassment by dogs

Progulske, D. R., & Baskett, T. S. (1958). Mobility of Missouri deer and their arassment by dogs. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 184-192.

There is little information on the mobility of the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the middle United States; data are equally limited on the mobility of white-tails on land that is primarily agricultural or where ther's a yearlong harassment by dogs...

Domestic dogs in Wildlife habitats

Sime, C. A. 1999. Domestic Dogs in Wildlife Habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307pp.

It is difficult to segregate human demographic trends from trends in rural development and outdoor recreational participation in settings like the West where they appear to be interrelated. One extension of human recreation in wildlife habitats is the effect of disturbance, harassment, displacement, or direct mortality of wildlife attributable to domestic dogs that accompany recreationists. At some level, domestic dogs still maintain instincts to hunt and/or chase. Given the appropriate stimulus, those instincts can be triggered in many different settings. Even if the chase instinct is not triggered, dog presence in and of itself has been shown to disrupt many wildlife species. Authors of many wildlife disturbance studies concluded that dogs with people, dogs on-leash, or loose dogs provoked the most pronounced disturbance reactions from their study animals. During winter, concerns are primarily related to human activity on ungulate winter ranges. Dogs extend the zone of human influence when off-leash. Many ungulate species demonstrated more pronounced reactions to unanticipated disturbances, as a dog off-leash would be until within very close range. In addition, dogs can force movement by ungulates (avoidance or evasion during pursuit), which is in direct conflict with overwinter survival strategies which promote energy conservation. During summer, concerns are primarily related to the birth and rearing of young for all wildlife species. Dogs are noted predators for various wildlife species in all seasons. Domestic dogs can potentially introduce diseases (distemper, parvovirus, and rabies) and transport parasites into wildlife habitats. While dog impacts to wildlife likely occur at the individual scale, the results may still have important implications for wildlife populations. For most wildlife species, if a “red flag” is raised by pedestrian-based recreational disturbance, there could also be problems associated with the presence of domestic dogs. Managers may consider the following when evaluating recreational impacts of dogs in wildlife habitats: species biology, reproductive potential, abundance, density, distribution, degree of habitat specificity or reliance on certain habitat components, and predisposition and sensitivity to disturbance by other agents. This information is intended to increase awareness among natural resource professionals and the public about the potential implications of uncontrolled domestic dogs in wildlife habitats and to encourage responsible outdoor recreation ethics.

Behaviour of deers chased by hunting dogs

Sweeney, J. R., Marchinton, R. L., & Sweeney, J. M. (1971). Responses of radio-monitored white-tailed deer chased by hunting dogs. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 35 (4): 707-716.

Studies were conducted on three separate areas-Auburn, Alabama; Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; and Savannah River Plant, South Carolina-to determine the responses of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to chasing by hunting dogs (Canis familiaris). Deer chosen for harassment were animals that had been studied by telemetry until normal behavior, movement patterns, and ranges were delineated. In every chase the deer escaped the hounds, and all deer remained in good physical condition throughout the study. Behavior that resulted in escape was classified into five categories: holding, distance running, circuitous zigzag running, separating from a group, and using escape habitat. Chases averaged 33 minutes in duration and 2.4 miles in distance with maximums of 155 minutes and 13.4 miles recorded. Deer in high populations were more difficult to chase for extended periods than those in low populations. Although the deer did not require water for escape, they usually selected swamps or other bodies of water when these were available. The deer could readily be chased out of their home ranges, but usually they returned in 1 day or sooner.

Dog attacks to sheep

Jennens, G. 2002. Domestic dog attacks on sheep in the urban fringe areas of Perth, Western Australia. PhD thesis, Murdoch University.

In common with many cities, Perth, Western Australia has a problem with domestic dogs attacking livestock, such as sheep on its urban fringe areas. The current study used multiple sources to document 1479 attacks on livestock on 1105 properties by 1900 dogs across eight metropolitan local authorities over a three-year period. The hypothesis that dog attacks on sheep are poorly understood by the community and continue as a result of inaction by local authorities, dog owners and livestock owners, rather than being an unavoidable predator/prey interaction, was supported. The predatory behaviour of domestic dogs and the anti-predatory behaviour of sheep were observed to be similar to that of wild canids and ungulates respectively.

The reluctance of local authorities to prosecute offenders and enforce by-laws meant that there was little voluntary compliance by dog owners to control their dogs. It therefore, became necessary for livestock owners to protect their livestock; however, most failed to take effective preventive measures.

Wild canids predominantly attack the head and neck of prey animals, whereas in contrast, domestic dogs may attack any part of a sheep. Examination of injury sites, in conjunction with information collected from other investigative techniques, assisted with the identification of the breed, size and number of dogs responsible. To overcome difficulties in locating a dog not sighted attacking, tracker-dogs were trained to follow the attacker's scent back to its home. The majority of dogs (60%) lived within 200 metres of the livestock they attacked and used the same route to and from the property on subsequent attacks.

A single or pair of owned dogs from the same household, belonging to 14 breeds were primarily responsible for attacks. Poor management by dog owners on inadequately fenced smallholdings enabled these dogs to wander unnoticed from their properties. Although most dog owners accepted evidence of their dogs' involvement, few accepted blame and most were surprised that their "friendly" pet could attack livestock. Unless dogs were destroyed, relocated or contained by their owners they were likely to attack again.

It is concluded that dog attacks occur commonly in urban fringe areas; however, with appropriate management of dogs and livestock these can be minimised.

Dogs affecting distribution of threatened ungulates

Silva-Rodriguez, E.A. & K.E. Sieving. 2012. Domestic dogs shape the landscape-scale distribution of a threatened forest ungulate. Biological Conservation, 150: 103-110

Domestic dogs are the most abundant carnivores worldwide, primarily due to human support. Food and other subsidies to dogs do not necessarily prevent dog predation on wildlife, particularly where dogs are allowed to range freely. Dog impacts on wildlife are suspected to be significant, yet the nature of dog– wildlife interactions is not fully understood. We tested the hypothesis that the distribution of dogs can significantly influence the space use of potential prey, and that both lethal and non-lethal mechanisms may underlie this interaction. If this is true, then we predicted that (1) evidence of predation and harassment by dogs should be evident where prey and dog activities overlap and (2) potential prey should be less frequent in areas where the probability of dog presence is high. To test these predictions we conducted two related studies. (1) We interviewed dog owners to estimate the probability of dog attack on pudu (Pudu puda), a globally vulnerable deer, and the lethality of these attacks. (2) We conducted a camera-trap survey documenting the landscape-scale distribution of pudu and dogs. Interviews showed that both the probability of dog attack on pudu (>85%) and the lethality of such attacks was high (50%). In occupancy models applied to the camera-trap data, the variable that best explained the distribution of pudus was the probability of dog presence. We tested three alternative explanations for the negative association between pudus and dogs that were not supported. Our findings suggest that dogs are efficient at chasing pudu they detect and that both predation and non-lethal (avoidance) consequences of harassment may be shaping the distribution of pudu. This work brings into focus important mechanisms underlying the threats of domestic dogs to endangered prey.