Behavioural suitability of Sri Lankan urban free roaming dogs as companion animals
ISCP THESIS BY SOHARNI TENNEKOON (2021)
ABSTRACT:
In developing countries such as Sri Lanka, populations of free-roaming dogs (FRDs), (colloquially known as street dogs), are prevalent in urban areas. The prevalence of these populations in densely urbanized areas pose animal welfare issues, while simultaneously posing public health risks (zoonotic disease transmission such as rabies, and dog bites). FRDs comprise 3/4ths of the world’s domestic dog population (~750 million dogs out of 1 billion). Together with poor dog population management practices, and booming pedigree breeders, dog populations are proliferating, with not enough homes/shelters to provide adequate welfare conditions. While a new movement toward adopting FRDs as pets is slowly trending in certain pockets of the developing world under the global umbrella of #adoptdontshop, the stigma attached to adopting street dogs over pedigree dogs in Sri Lanka is still prevalent. FRDs are culturally perceived as ubiquitous, akin to pests, associated with disease, danger and unpredictability. But scientific research and public information on FRDs is scarce. How well do they adapt and assimilate to life in our homes as pets? The aim of this study was to determine the behavioural characteristics of street dogs in adoptive home settings, post adoption. A survey of 167 volunteers who have adopted Sri Lankan street dogs as pets, was conducted to assess the behaviours of these dogs in the home setting, based on an adaption of the Canine Behavioural Assessment & Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ).
SUMMARY AVAILABLE HERE: https://www.instagram.com/p/CP5GafdhKPg/
INTRODUCTION:
The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is the first known species to have undergone the domestication process, co-evolving with humans over tens of thousands of years (Hare, 2013). Although the exact time of the domestication event is still under debate, the scientific community recognises that the domestic dog evolved from the grey wolf (Canis lupus) (Miklosi, 2014). Since the emergence of the early proto-dog, (contemporaries who became companions of early humans), dogs have undergone ongoing genetic selection, (both natural and artificial). These small, continuous divergences have resulted in a cascade of behavioural and morphological changes (Hare, 2013), resulting in over 400 different breeds (Britannica, n.d). Pedigree dog breeds have since been extensively and intensively studied and ‘standardized’ since artificial selection proliferated in Victorian Britain (Worboys et al, 2018). While artificially selected pedigree dog breeds are a relatively new creation, they constitute only 1/4th of the world’s domestic dog population (Coppinger, 2016). The remaining 3/4ths are naturally selected dogs, the majority of whom roam unrestricted with no fixed home or owner — also known as free-roaming dogs, free-ranging dogs, or roaming dogs (Coppinger, 2016) (ICAM, 2019). Colloquially known in Sri Lanka as ‘street dogs’, hereon will be referred to as free-roaming dogs (FRD). However, despite this overwhelming statistic, FRD are the most understudied population of dogs worldwide (Coppinger, 2016).
To date, there is sparse scientific data on FRD populations globally (Durr et al 2017), notably in Sri Lanka, which is home to an estimated 3 million FRD (WHO, 2016). FRD are the subject of animal welfare concerns, as well as public health concerns, such as zoonotic diseases and dog bites (WHO, 2016). FRD populations in Sri Lanka are not approached as a social issue to be managed, but as a disease vector to be eradicated. Due to a combination of outdated animal welfare legislation (Pasqual, n.d), and shortsighted dog population management tactics, FRD populations’ birth and mortality rates have little chance of being stabilized.
Meanwhile, pedigree dogs, perceived as status symbols, are highly sought after in Sri Lanka. Frequently purchased through unregulated breeders, this consequently exacerbates the dog overpopulation crisis. Moreover, steadfast public perceptions of street dogs as unpredictable, dangerous, and diseased, are possible reasons for the hesitation to adopt. In order to change this narrative, expanded research on FRDs is required, starting with an exploration of their behavioral ecology. Understanding FRDs in their 2 main environments, the streets, and in adoptive homes help us better understand these animals in attempts to improve their welfare. This study aims to provide initial qualitative data of FRD behavioural patterns as pets in the home environment, based on a survey of 167 voluntary participants.
METHODOLOGY:
Subjects: Data was gathered for this study via a 13 question anonymous online questionnaire of 167 volunteers who had adopted Sri Lankan urban FRDs as pets. The survey was adapted from the Canine Behavioural Assessment & Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ).
Questionnaire: The questionnaire was divided into 2 sections; the first had 7 subsections consisting of multiple choice questions that assessed behaviours based on the C-BARQ. Excitability, Aggression, Fear/Anxiety, Separation Anxiety, Attachment, Training/Obedience, and Miscellaneous Behaviours.
“The Canine Behavioral Assessment & Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ) is a standardized, behavioral evaluation tool for dog owners/guardians, handlers and professionals. Although sometimes described as a form of canine personality assessment, the C-BARQ was originally designed to measure the prevalence and severity of behavioral problems in privately-owned and working dogs, and that remains its primary value and purpose.” (Serpell, 2021).
The second section had 6 questions focused on demographic information of the adopted dogs (age, sex, reproductive status, background), and dog ownership practices (whether they caged/chained their dogs, how they perceived FRDs vs pedigrees, why they chose to adopt).
RESULTS:
165/167 responses were recorded for the following.
Demographic information
Table 1: Demographic information
Dog ownership practices were rated on a 5 point frequency scale (Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often, Always).
Behavioural assessment
167/167 responses were recorded here. The first 3 categories (Excitability, Aggression, and Fear/Anxiety) were rated on a 0–5 intensity scale (0 being the least/none to 5 being the most/extreme).
Behaviour
The following 4 categories (Separation anxiety, Attachment/Attention seeking, Training/Obedience, and Miscellaneous Behaviours), were rated on a 5 point frequency scale (Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often, Always).
Table 3
DISCUSSION:
Demographic information & ownership practices were rated on a 5 point frequency scale (Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often, Always).
83% of 167 participants never chained or caged their dogs, 69.7% had their dogs both vaccinated and sterilized, 43.6% never allowed their dogs to roam unsupervised outside of their property, 66% owned female dogs, and 97% actively chose to rescue a homeless dog over buying a pedigree. Based on these results, we can hypothesise that most FRD adopters care for their dogs as household pets, and are attuned to basic street dog welfare issues. Namely, understanding the:
- importance of sterilization/vaccination (humane dog population management),
- risks of allowing dogs to roam the streets unaccompanied,
- basic premise of animal welfare freedoms,
- value of adopting female FRDs due to the surplus of unwanted females linked to a cultural stigma attached to owning females dogs
Behavioural assessment
“Much of the public’s selection of companion animals is based on assumptions of likely behaviour based on perception of breed stereotypes rather than the assessment of behaviour in specific individuals.” (Serpell, 1995). Breed stereotyping is an inaccurate and misleading method of behaviour assessment (Coppinger, 2016). It is especially problematic when FRDs are viewed through this myopic lens. Erroneously assigning ‘breed characteristics’, to a population of dogs that do not identify as a breed leads to unsound decision-making. It is more scientifically valuable to evaluate their behavioral patterns in the environment in question ie. the adoptive home.
Furthermore, ‘behaviour’ as defined by a meta-analysis of scientific literature is, “the internally coordinated responses (actions or inactions) of whole living organisms (individuals or groups) to internal and/or external stimuli” (Levitis et al. 2009). Following this line of thought, it would be misleading to judge FRD’s potential behavior in an adoptive home environment based on their behaviors on the streets, since external stimuli are vastly different.
It is important that we examine their behaviors in the two settings independent of one another. Survival instinct, pack mentality, a lack of resources, and other factors, will influence behaviour. “Dogs may adjust what they do based on group size” (Bekoff, 2018). According to a study by Roberto Bonanni, “dogs belonging to the smallest pack tended to be more cooperative than those belonging to larger groups” (Bekoff, 2018).
What happens when you remove environmental stressors from living on the streets? What are their common behaviours in an adoptive home? Which behaviours are problematic? Each behaviour category from the C-BARQ will be discussed separately with these questions in mind:
EXCITABILITY: Based on the data from this study, FRDs tend to display high excitability in anticipation of being taken out of the house. This may be a common trait amongst Canis familiaris, who as a species, gather information about their world primarily via their nose (Bekoff, 2018). With FRDs, whose primary environment is the streets, this high excitability in anticipation of going outside may be genetically hardwired into them (Corrieri et al. 2018). We can infer that adopted FRDs would do well with regular walks and outings, to meet their basic needs/wants, and offer vital sensory enrichment.
AGGRESSION: The most common responses indicate that FRDs display low aggressive behaviours in the home, particularly towards owners and familiar humans and dogs, with regards to resource guarding food, toys and bones.
(Notably, in contrast to Duffy et al., (2008)’s C-BARQ study where the highest aggression to household members were in the small-medium size range, FRDs, who fall within the medium category scored low on household member aggression in this study).
Highest aggressive behaviour was around unfamiliar conspecifics, and mid level aggression towards unfamiliar humans. A possible explanation for these agonistic tendencies toward unfamiliar (dog and human) interactions, could be part of FRDs survival repertoire, “Aggression is one component of a range of agonistic behaviours that serve to regulate individuals’ ability to compete for various resources (food, shelter, territory, mates, social status).” (Serpell, 1995).
Fear-based aggression is linked to genetics, lack of socialization and generalized trauma (McConnell, 2006), all of which are common factors in FRDs’ lives. This protective behaviour also aligns with participants’ anecdotal evidence that FRDs make good guard dogs.
FEAR/ANXIETY: As companion animals, the results indicate that FRDs are not a fearful population. This aligns with the reported low levels of aggression towards familiar humans and dogs, since aggression is most often rooted in fear (McConnell, 2006) (Tenzin-Dolma, 2016) .
The highest level of fear/anxiety was reported for nonsocial fear, involving novel, loud noises, a common fear amongst dogs (Todd, 2015). “The most common anxiety disorders in dogs are separation anxiety, noise phobia, thunderstorm phobia, and generalised anxiety” (Serpell, 1995).
However, this manifestation doesn’t justify classification as a ‘problem’ behaviour. “Problem behaviour is usually normal behaviour manifested in extreme or inappropriate ways. An example is fearfulness. Fear is an instinctive natural response to a threat. For the majority of dogs fear is of short duration and increases the chance of escaping danger. For dogs with an anxiety disorder, the state of fear lasts much longer and the dog may become extremely sensitive to any perceived threat.” Serpell (1995).
SEPARATION ANXIETY (SA): Barking, whining, restlessness, pacing and agitation were reported as Sometimes, while destructive behaviours (chewing, soiling, scratching at furniture) was reported as Never, by the majority of respondents. We can infer that while SA is present amongst companion FRDs, it is not a problem behaviour. Salgirli Demirbas et al. (2014) suggest “This finding is not surprising because it is known that dogs adopted from animal shelters or through rescue routes are more likely to exhibit separation-related problems.””
According to canine behaviourist, Jackie Johnston, isolation distress is more common than SA, but is categorized under the same label. “Dogs with isolation distress are not attached to any particular person; they can be left with a variety of humans without experiencing distress.”
Moreover, according to canine behaviourist and SA specialist, Julie Naismith, “Bored or frustrated dogs can often display seemingly similar behaviours (in particular barking, chewing, and destroying) to dogs with separation anxiety.” Hence, further study is required to evaluate the specifics.
ATTACHMENT/ ATTENTION SEEKING: Hyper-attachment was reported as relatively common amongst respondents, corroborating Sherman & Mills, 2008, Salgirli Demirbas et al. (2014). According to Tenzin-Dolma (2019), excessive attachment can manifest as SA, especially in puppies who were removed/separated from their mother and littermates too early — common in FRDs, whose lives are volatile from birth. Although both hyper-attachment and SA were reported as common in this study, it is worth noting that they are not synonymous (Todd, 2015).
TRAINABILITY: Companion FRDs scored high for trainability for basic cues like sit/stay. Indian studies have shown that FRDs are able to learn rudimentary signals without formal training. “This study confirms our earlier reports on free-ranging dogs’ ability to follow human gestures, in spite of having no training.” (Bhattacharjee et al, 2020)
While this doesn’t present the extent to which FRDs are trainable, it is valuable in understanding their potential for behaviour modification of ‘problem behaviours’ as companions. It also helps in debunking false perceptions about FRDs being ‘untrainable’.
MISCELLANEOUS BEHAVIOURS: Chasing small animals was found to be the most common problem behaviour, correlatable to a Balinese FRD study, Corrieri et al. (2018) . Chasing, also known as ‘prey drive’ refers to “a natural desire to chase and kill prey animals for food. This exists in many animals and all breeds of dogs but in dogs is more evident in sight hounds (including greyhounds). It is also referred to as ‘predatory behaviour’ or ‘predation’, and mostly occurs when the dog is relaxed and in a positive mental state. Prey drive is a very different behaviour to aggression which is usually anxiety or fear-based; where the dog is in a negative mental state. In these cases the aggression is a protective mechanism.” (GAP, 2018).
Table 4: Comparative behavioural study
Averages were input and charted against corresponding population averages from the C-BARQ database. The following 13 behavioural categories were compared: Stranger-direct aggression, Owner-directed aggression, Dog-directed aggression (unfamiliar dogs), Dog-directed fear (unfamiliar dogs), Familiar dog aggression, Trainability, Chasing, Stranger-directed fear, Nonsocial fear, Separation Anxiety, Excitability, Attachment/Attention seeking, and Energy.
The majority of FRD behaviours were either close to the C-BARQ average, or posed minor behavioural problems. The most noticeable problem behaviours were in 3 areas: Dog-directed aggression (unfamiliar dogs), Chasing, and Excitability.
Chasing/predation of small animals — “chasing things that run away is a natural part of hunting behaviour — although this is no excuse for us to refrain from training the dog not to do it.” (Bradshaw, 2012). “Predation is unconditioned and can be triggered by stimuli that causes the dog to aggress impulsively in a predatory way which he has no control over. We can counter-condition learned aggressive behaviour (like resource guarding), but we cannot change predation with training, therefore management with dogs displaying predatory aggression is essential.” (Lizzie Morris, 2021).
Excitability — is trainable with regular exercise, mental enrichment and training. Eg. eliciting a sit/stay, and having them be calm before leaving the house.
Dog-dog aggression — this undesirable behaviour is modifiable during the sensitive window (weeks 3–12), where neuroplasticity is high (Tenzin-Dolma, 2019). It is also achievable in adult dogs, under the guidance of a certified canine behaviourist.
Interestingly, a pioneering study done on adopted ‘Bali dogs’ (FRDs) by Corrieri et al. (2018) showed strikingly similar results: “The results of this preliminary study suggest that a change in lifestyle, i.e. being adopted, and living in a confined environment has negative consequences on some canine personality traits, such as activity/excitability, aggression towards animals, and prey drive.”
The authors note that a possible reason for reported high excitability was their owners perceived their dog as more excitable “because they were confined to a limited area with their dogs for extended periods of time.” (Corrieri et al., 2018)
CONCLUSION:
This study served as an initial assessment to provide a baseline understanding of FRD behaviour in their secondary environment, (adoptive home setting), and indicated negligible behavioral problems, comparable to an average companion dog. However, it is not a conclusive study, and further research is required to evaluate the specifics of the identified behaviours, the adaptive abilities and duration, as well as dog ownership perceptions and practices.
Notably, the behaviours identified in this study as being potentially problematic, resemble the findings of the 2018 Bali dog study in the exact same 3 behaviours: excitability, conspecific aggression, and prey drive. While the Bali dogs authors refer to these as negative consequences of being adopted, it is helpful to note that these undesirable behaviours aren’t permanent, and can be modifiable, trainable or manageable, with consistent training alongside a certified canine behaviorist. FRDs are remarkably adaptive, which is why they are successful as a population, in the first place (Miklosi, 2014) (Coppinger, 2016) (Serpell, 1995).
Further research would meanwhile be beneficial to understanding their adaptive mechanisms, as well as positive and negative impacts of adoption on behavior, using Turkey (Salgirli Demirbas et al. 2014), Bali (Corrieri et al., 2018), and Sri Lanka as case studies.
“We would expect that free-roaming dogs studied under different conditions would behave differently, and that these differences would be adaptive” (Serpell, 1995).
REFERENCES
Abela-Ridder, B., Lionel Harischandra, P., Gunesekera, A., Janakan, N., & Gongal, G. (2016). Sri Lanka takes action towards a target of zero rabies death by 2020. WHO South-East Asia J Public Health, 5(2), 113. 10.4103/2224–3151.206247
Bekoff, M. (2018). Canine Confidential. University of Chicago Press.
Bhattacharjee, D., Mandal, S., Shit, P., Varghese, M. G., Vishnoi, A., & Bhadra, A. (2020). Free-Ranging Dogs Are Capable of Utilizing Complex Human Pointing Cues. Front. Psychol., 10. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02818
Bradshaw, J. (2012a). In Defence Of Dogs Why Dogs Need Our Understanding. Penguin Books.
Bradshaw, J. (2012b). Dog Sense. Basic Books.
Britannica, E. (n.d.). Breed specific behaviour. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved April 21, 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/animal/dog/Breed-specific-behaviour
Coppinger, R. (2016). What is a dog? University of Chicago Press.
Coppinger, R. (2019). How Dogs Work. University of Chicago Press.
Corrieri, L., Adda, M., Miklósi, Á., & Kubinyi, E. (2018). Companion and free-ranging Bali dogs: Environmental links with personality traits in an endemic dog population of South East Asia. 10.1371/journal.pone.0197354
de Lavigne, G. (2015). Free Ranging Dogs — Stray, Feral or Wild?
DÜRR, S., DHAND, N. K., BOMBARA, C., MOLLOY, S., & WARD, M. P. (2017). What influences the home range size of free-roaming domestic dogs? Epidemiol. Infect., 145(7), 1339–1350. 10.1017/s095026881700022x
Hare, B. (2013). The Genius of Dogs. Penguin.
http://gap.grv.org.au. (2018, December 4). Understanding And Managing Prey Drive. GAP. http://gap.grv.org.au/understanding-managing-prey-drive/
International Companion Animal Management Coalition (ICAM). (n.d.). ICAM. Retrieved April 26, 2021, from https://www.icam-coalition.org/
Johnston, J. (n.d.). Believe In Your Dog — Specializing In Separation Anxiety In Dogs. Believe In Your Dog — Specializing In Separation Anxiety In Dogs . Retrieved April 26, 2021, from https://www.believeinyour.dog/
Levitis, D. A., Lidicker, W. Z., & Freund, G. (2009). Behavioural biologists do not agree on what constitutes behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 78(1), 103–110. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.03.018
Lockwood, R. (1996). Ethology, ecology and epidemiology of canine aggression. In J. Serpell (Ed.), The Domestic Dog. Cambridge University Press.
McConnell, P. (2006). For the love of a dog.
Miklosi, A. (2014). Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition. OUP Oxford.
Miklosi, A. (2018). The Dog: A Natural History.
Naismith, J. (n.d.). Fixing Dog Separation Anxiety | SubThreshold Training. Julie Naismith | SubThreshold Separation Anxiety Training. Retrieved April 26, 2021, from https://www.subthresholdtraining.com/
Pasqual, M. (n.d.). A BETTER APPROACH TO ANIMAL WELFARE LAW; A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LAW ON PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS IN SRI LANKA. http://ir.kdu.ac.lk/bitstream/handle/345/2572/Law%20new_8.pdf
Salgirli Demirbas, Y., Emre, B., & Kockaya, M. (2014). Integration ability of urban free-ranging dogs into adoptive families’ environment. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 9(5), 222–227. 10.1016/j.jveb.2014.04.006
Serpell, J. (1996a). From paragon to pariah: Cross-cultural perspectives on attitudes to dogs. In The Domestic Dog. Cambridge University Press.
Serpell, J. (1996b). The Domestic Dog. Cambridge University Press.
Serpell, J. A. (n.d.). About The C-BARQ — C-BARQ: Canine Behavioral Assessment & Research Questionnaire. Copyright 2021 James A. Serpell And The University Of Pennsylvania. All Rights Reserved. Retrieved April 26, 2021, from https://vetapps.vet.upenn.edu/cbarq/about.cfm
Sherman, B. L., & Mills, D. S. (2008). Canine Anxieties and Phobias: An Update on Separation Anxiety and Noise Aversions. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 38(5), 1081–1106. 10.1016/j.cvsm.2008.04.012
Tenzin-Dolma, L. (2019). International School for Canine Psychology & Behaviour: Diploma Course Textbook (8th ed). https://web.archive.org
Todd, Z. (2015, March 25). Can Street Dogs Become Good Pets? Companion Animal Psychology. https://www.companionanimalpsychology.com/2015/03/can-street-dogs-become-good-pets.html#:~:text=The%20scientists%20conclude%20that%20urban,of%20adopting%20a%20similar%20dog.
van den Berg, L. (1996). Genetics of dog behavior. In J. Serpell (Ed.), The Domestic Dog. Cambridge University Press.
Worboys, M. (2018). The Invention of the Modern Dog. Johns Hopkins University Press.
