Considerations of Ethical Aspects of Control Strategies of Unowned Free-Roaming Dog Populations and the No-Kill Policy in Italy

In: Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research

Abstract

The management of free-roaming dog populations is an important matter both for the local administrations that have to manage this problem and for the defenders of the animals’ rights. This review’s first objective is to analyse the legal status of the free-roaming dogs in some European countries. A second purpose of this work is to ask questions and to consider the ethical aspects of the already-existing strategies to control free-roaming dog populations. Italian Law no. 281, which was enacted in 1991, was intended to solve the problem of free-roaming dogs in Italy; at the same time, apparently in contradiction with this objective, the law called for a no-kill policy to be enforced throughout the whole national territory. Thus, for a dog that has no chances of adoption, the ethical debate has moved to the question of whether a “life imprisonment” is better than the “capital punishment”. In terms of ethical aspects of control strategies of free-roaming dog populations, we believe that the Italian national law, and its regional applications, are more functional than the other laws of Westernized countries, with the appropriate measures suggested and with a more accurate control on their application.

  • Barnard, S., Pedernera, C., Velarde, A. & Dalla Villa, P. (2014). Shelter Quality. Welfare Assessment Protocol for Shelter Dogs. Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise “G. Caporale”.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cafazzo, S., Maragliano, L., Bonanni, R., Scholl, F., Guarducci, M., Scarcella, R., Di Paolo, M., Pontier, D., Lai, O., Carlevaro, F., Bucci, E., Cerini, N., Carlevaro, L., Alfieri, L., Fantini, C. & Natoli, E. (2014). “Behavioural and physiological indicators of shelter dogs’ welfare: reflections on the no-kill policy on free-ranging dogs in Italy revisited on the basis of 15 years of implementation”. Physiology & Behavior, 113, 223–229.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cavalier, M. (2016). Exploring Attitudes Toward Euthanasia Among Shelter Workers and Volunteers in Japan and the U.S.. Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy Animal Studies Repository.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chatry, A., Morlot, C. & Tavernier, L. (2012). Fourrière Animale, Guide à l’attention des maires. École Nationale des Services Vétérinaires.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coren, S. (2012). When the ethical treatment of animals goes wrong. Is killing 95 percent of animals entrusted to a shelter ethical? Psycology Today. Available online: www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201204/when-the-ethical-treatment-animals-goes-wrong.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frank, J. (2004). “An interactive model of human and companion animal dynamics: the ecology and economics of dog overpopulation and the human costs of addressing the problem”. Human Ecology, 32:1, 107–130.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Heinlein, S. (2013). The cruelty of kindness ‘No kill’ animal shelters have unleashed an epidemic of suffering. Is a life of misery any better than a quick death? Aeon. Available online: aeon.co/essays/no-kill-animal-rescue-is-a-disaster-for-animal-welfare.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ICAM Euthanasia Protocol (2015). The welfare basis for euthanasia of dogs and cats and policy development.

  • Innocenti, I. (2017). Randagismo cosa è cambiato in 10 anni. LAV2017. Available online: www.lav.it.

  • Jackman, J. & Rowan, A. (2007). “Free-roaming dogs in developing countries: 6e bene7ts of capture, neuter, and return programs”. In: D.J. Salem & A.N. Rowan (eds), 6e State of the Animals 2007. Washington, DC: Humane Society Press, 55–78.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Michalon, J. (2014). “Pourquoi faut-il parler de la mort des animaux de refuge?”. Études sur la mort, 2014/1:145, 73–82. doi:10.3917/eslm.145.0073.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Natoli, E., Maragliano, L., Cariola, G., Faini, A., Bonanni, R., Cafazzo, S. & Fantini C. (2006). “Management of feral domestic cats in the urban environment of Rome (Italy)”. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 77, 180–185.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Newbury, S., Blinn, M.K., Bushby, P.A., Cox, C.B., Dinnage, J.D., Griffin, B., Hurley, K.F., Isaza, N., Jones, W., Miller, L., O’Quin, J., Patronek, G.J., Smith-Blackmore, M. & Spindel, M. (2010). Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. Association of Shelter Veterinarians.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Srinivasan, K. (2013). “The biopolitics of animal being and welfare: dog control and care in the UK and India”. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38, 106–119. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00501.x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tasker, L. (2007). Stray Animal Control Practices (Europe). A Report into the Strategies for Controlling Stray Dog and Cat Populations Adopted in Thirty-one Countries. World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) and Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals International (RSPCA International).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 99 99 9
Full Text Views 16 16 1
PDF Downloads 14 14 1