Estimation of Owned and Street Dog Population by Quesionnire Survey and Mark-Recapture Method in Three Urban Areas: Bishoftu, Dukem and Modjo Towns

Tegegne D; Mengesha A

Research Article

Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb. 2022; 9(4): 1104.

Estimation of Owned and Street Dog Population by Quesionnire Survey and Mark-Recapture Method in Three Urban Areas: Bishoftu, Dukem and Modjo Towns

Tegegne D¹ and Mengesha A²*

¹Amhara Regional State Field Veterinarian Health Practitioner, Ethiopia

²Ethiopian Veterinary Drug and Feed Control and Administrative Authority, Ethiopia

*Corresponding author: Ayehu Mengesha, Ethiopian Veterinary Drug and Feed Control and Administrative Authority, Ethiopia

Received: August 30, 2022; Accepted: September 30, 2022; Published: October 07, 2022

Abstract

The understanding of the structure of free-roaming and owning dog population’s estimation is of extreme importance for the planning and monitoring of dog population control strategies, animal welfare and health. The methods used to estimate the abundance of this group of dogs are more complex than the ones used with domiciled owned dogs. We point to enhancements necessary for the implementation of the studies and to potential updates and revisions to the recommendations of the World Health Organization with respect to the estimation of free-ranging and owning dog populations. Rabies is a fatal viral disease of animals and people. People usually infected via bites from an infected animal (e.g. dog). Post Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) has to initiate immediately after bite wounds of suspected rabid animals in order to avoid fatalities. The situation of rabies poorly known in Ethiopia. Questionnaire survey was conducted in selected blocks in Dukem, Bishoftu and Modjo towns in order to capture information on dog population size estimates using mark-resight surveys has provided useful baseline data for understanding the population dynamics of dogs at the study sites. Mark-resight surveys provide useful information for designing and managing the logistics of dog vaccination or assessing vaccination coverage and for evaluating the impact of neutering programs on the size and structure of dogs’ populations over time. As part of a dog born zoonosis disease risk assessment project, surveys conducted to estimate the size of the dog population and to describe dog management practices of households belonging to different ethnic groups. A markedrecapture method employed and the number of unowned dogs estimated. A total of 599 dog owning households and 276 non-dog household interviewed from at selected 19 blocks at study sites. Owned dogs were more likely male, local breed and for the purpose of used to guard. These households kept their dogs either fully restricted, semi and free roaming but full restriction have reported only at the higher percentage of the total dog households. By counted method, study the ownerless dogs higher than owning and semi-restricted dogs.

Keywords: Estimate dog population; free rooming dog; Rabies

Introduction

The domestic dog (Canisfamiliaris) is the most numerous carnivores in the world [15]. Dogs recognised to play a role in about 100 zoonotic diseases [49]. They have also been implicated as the source of infection for several disease outbreaks affecting wild carnivores, including Canine Distemper Virus (CDV) and rabies [12,21], which have caused epidemics in wild populations [24,39].

Dogs are closely associated with humans, kept by households as companions and often considered as part of the family, especially in developed countries [46]. In some communities, for instance indigenous communities in Australia and some ethnic groups in Indonesia, dogs play an important role in the culture of the community [36]. However, when dogs not fully provided with food and shelter, then they will roam if not confined. Semi-roaming and free-roaming dog populations can create risks for public health due to zoonotic diseases, such as rabies [41]. Thus, understanding the dog–human relationship in a community is critical for planning rabies prevention and control. The demographic characteristics of host populations have a profound impact on the transmission and maintenance of microparasites (Grenfell and Dobson, 1995).

Although a great percentage of dogs are domiciliary and restricted, there are still a great percentage of dogs continuously circulating on the street [28] forming specific population groups, which named free roaming, stray, wandering, not domiciled or unrestricted. Stray dogs considered the primary victims of irresponsible owners who reject their pets into the streets [2].

The existence of free-roaming dogs considered an important problem, not only for the animal welfare but also for Public Health [22]. Adequate estimates of the size and of the characteristics of the population of free-roaming dogs are essential in planning and monitoring the effectiveness of strategies adopted for the control and for the welfare of the population [19], for the management of risks associated with their presence [16] and to quantify the prevalence of zoonosis and other diseases present in these animals. The methods used to estimate the abundance of domiciliary dogs, such as the assessment of veterinary records or sampling based on questionnaires toowners, are useful to estimate the abundance of free-ranging dogs [40].

Internationally, the control and prevention of urban rabies has based on dog vaccination and population management [37]. Both vaccination and population control programs require data on the distribution and numbers of free-roaming dogs. Thus, estimation of the free-roaming dog population size is a necessary first step in planning rabies control programs [3]. I initiated to study this title due to the presence of increased free roaming dog population in the study towns and conditional risk of dog borne diseases.

A. Therefore, the objective of this study wGeneral objective of the study

To identify and improve public health and welfare of owned and stray dog population by reduce numbers of stray dogs to an acceptable level in the study area.

B. Specific objectives of the study

1. To estimate the dog population to enable devising realistic plans for dog population management, zoonosis control and monitoring the success of future interventions.

2. To estimate the total dog population with owners and street dog in order to enable better planning of the control actions against diseases involving these animals.

Materials and Methods

Study Area

The study conducted in three towns found in central Ethiopia: from February to May 2017 in Dukem, Bishoftu and Modjo towns. Dukem is a town in central Ethiopia. It named after the Dukem River. Located in the Oromia Special Zone Surrounding Finfinne of the Oromia Region, 37 kilometers southeast of Addis Ababa and 10 kilometers northwest of Bishoftu, this town has a latitude and longitude 08N,48N and 38E,54E respectively and an elevation of 1950 meters above sea level and the climate is warm and temperate. The summers here have a good deal of rainfall, while the winters have very little. The average annual temperature is 18.7 °C and the average rainfall is 907 mm. Based on the Central Statistical Agency in 2005, Dukem has an estimated total population of 8,704 of whom 4,095 are men and 4,609 are women [23].

Bishoftu is a town and separate woreda of Ethiopia, lying southeast of Addis Ababa. It formerly known as Debre Zeyit, However since the late 1990s it officially known by the Oromo name, Bishoftu [31]. This was its name until 1955. The town is located in the Misraq Shewa Zone of the Oromia Region, Bishoftu is located 47.9 kilometres southeast of Addis Ababa [23]. A cluster of volcanic crater Lakes and popular spiritual sites found around the town characterizes Bishoftu’s tourist offer. Because of its low altitude up to 1850 masl, Bishoftu for the Oromo people at Lake Hora has a warm climate. The major resort lakes are Lake Hora Arsade, Lake Bishoftu, Lake Babogaya, Lake Kuriftu, Lake Kilol and Lake Magarsa. The 2007 national census reported a total population for Bishoftu of 99,928, of whom 47,860 were men and 52,068 were women. The majority of the inhabitants said they practiced Ethiopian. Orthodox Christianity with 79.75% of the population reporting they observed this belief, while 13.82% of the populations were Protestant and 4.98% of the populations were Muslim [5].

The three largest ethnic groups reported for this town were the Amhara (42.86%), the Oromo (39.4%) and the Gurage (8.3%), all other ethnic groups made up 9.44% of the population. Amharic spoken as a first language by 71.95% and 20.12% spoke Oromiffa, the remaining 7.93% spoke all other primary languages reported (Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia, 1994). The climate here is mild, and generally warm and temperate. In winter, there is much less rainfall in DebreZe it than in summer. The average annual temperature in DebreZe it is 18.7°C. In a year, the average rainfall is 892 mm [5].

Modjo is a town in central Ethiopia, named after the nearby Modjo River. Located in the Misraq Shewa Zone of the Oromia Region, it has a latitude and longitude of 8°39′N39°5′E with an elevation between 1788 and 1825 meters above sea level and climate here is mild, and generally warm and temperate. When compared with winter, the summers have much more rainfall. The average annual temperature in Modjo is 20.1°C and the rainfall here averages 863 mm. Based on the Central Statistical Agency in 2005, Modjo has an estimated total population of 39,316 of whom 19,278 were males and 20,038 were females [14].

Study Design and Sampling

A cross-sectional study conducted from January to May 2017 in three town sin Dukem, Bishoftuand Modjo towns to estimate dog population to inform Rabies Prevention and control. The google map of each study town was downloaded from google website and the entire regions of the towns were divided in to non-overlapping an approximately equal sized blocks surrounded by wide asphalt or cobblestone roads on the map. Then each block was marked with four different colors and one of the colors randomly selected by lottery system. Since the work requires three persons per block including two enumerators to fill the questioners and conduct dog count, one ‘Keble’ or local administration representative and to mark dogs and dog owning households and limited human resource availability to include all selected 60 blocks of Bishoftu town, a random selection was made by lottery system and 15 selected blocks of 60 green colored blocks of Bishoftu were renumbered 1-10 and included in the study. The selected areas then visited to mark their boundaries on the ground using turning roads and fixed permanent posts such as hotels, building and long fences etc. as markers. The selected areas were non adjusted to be within one by two kilometer square when the boundaries made on the map larger than what can be covered by two surveyors, who administering questionnaires one whole day and conduct dog counts on the next day both in the morning from 6:00 to 8:00 AM and in the afternoon from 5:00 to 7:00 PM.

Questionnaire Design and Implementation

A structured questionnaire designed to obtain data on number of dogs owned, dog function, dog management and dog bites from dog-owning households. The questionnaire developed in English and translated into Amharic and oromifa. Then back to translate from Amharic and or omifa into English by a member of the research team. The questionnaire survey conducted from January to May2017. The team had a one -day training to become familiar with the dogmanagement questionnaire.

Figure 1: During estrus, cycle marked outside.

    
    
    Figure 1: During estrus, cycle marked outside.

Figure 2: Not marked around the house Marked outside.

    
    
    Figure 2: Not marked around the house Marked outside.

The questionnaire administered via a face-to-face interview with the person responsible for the dog management at the household residence. The interviews were completed within 3 to 5 minutes were given to participants on completion of the interview and participants provided written informed consent to participate in this study.

Mark -Recapture (MR) and Counted Methods

After the MR conducted for one day and counted the next consecutive days. Mark took place on the first day at 6:00-8:00 am when most stray dogs were present in the public areas and count the visible dogs while walking through the communities. Locations and number of dog also recorded. Similar activities repeated at the same period on the afternoon. Dogs then identified by characteristics, including type of color seen in the photographs as well as color of the mark. In Bishoftu, Dukem and Modjo District, the most feasible time was at night from 6:00 pm to 1:00 pm and the feasible time was early morning between 6:00 am and 8:00 am, when traffic was minimal and natural light sufficient for observations (the lack of street lighting at this site prohibited dog counting at night-time). The counting carried out at each location on two consecutive days. The target dogs for the dog counting activity were unowned dogs defined as being free to roam and having no identifiable owner. As distinguishing free-roaming owned dogs from unowned dogs was challenging, dog owners (through kebele leaders during community gatherings) at these sites asked to doghouse holder their dogs during the dogcounting activity. However, confined owned dogs were not included in the MR since the method only allows counting the dogs that can be marked outside the houses. The number of dogs derived between capture and recapture differentiated, counted and recorded.

Data Management and Analysis

The data collected from the study area was enter into Micro soft ware Excel spreadsheets (windows) and analyzed by using STATA for Windows (Version 13) statistical software. The percentage of owned and stray dog population calculated for all data as the number of owned and stray dog individuals divided by the number of sampled individual × 100. In all of the analysis, 95% confidence intervals and P-value was held at <0.05 for significance.

Results

599 dog-owning households and 276 non-dog households interviewed in the study towns. Each household in selected blocks will be visited in the morning and all owned dogs were marked with paint suitable for animal marking that could be visible from distance and then the streets were visited in the afternoon the same day and the next day in the AM to re-sight and count all dogs found in the streets of selected blocks. Then the dogs were recorded based on the location of re-sight (in the compound, out of the compound), (marked, not marked), reproductive status (male, female, puppy).

Dog Ownership

For 599 dog-owning households interviewed. In Dukem, Bishoftu and Modjo towns, the households comprise the total number of dogs surveyed, among the study towns dog-owning households, 413(68.95%) owned one dog, 147(24.54%) owned two dogs, 24(4.01%) owned three dogs, 11(1.84%) owned four dogs, 1(0.17%) owned five dogs, 1(0.17%) owned six dogs and one(0.17%) owned nine dogs.

For dog owners, it is probable that veterinary services obtained in the event of disease and for vaccinations, and that food and shelter are available. This leads to the supposition that this group carries lower risk for the human population. However, the care given to these animals varies greatly and the degree of restriction is one reflection of these differences. In this sense, the semi-restricted and free at all-time dogs is a segment presenting risk, because of the contact they have with ownerless and neighborhood dogs, which more exposed to diseases, and because of their simultaneous interaction with other dogs with owners. The results obtained from the study indicated that the most frequent classification related to restricted dogs (56.02%). However, given the epidemiological importance of the group of semi-restricted dogs, the percentage found (31.77%) and free at all (12.35%) indicate in the (Table 2) below. Of the dog-owning households interviewed in this survey, the majority (at the study towns) owned only one dog (68.95%), most commonly local breed and more commonly male (86.42%). Dog used to guard houses. The preference appears torelate to guarding duties, given the majority of interviewed households keep dogs for this reason. Most of the time dogs used to guard the interview indicates farmers (96.30%) and employed (92.86%) from and for pet purpose farmers are 0 %, labors 6.45 %,private 8.99% and employed 2.38% (Table 4).

Table 1: Total doghouse hold and no doghouse hold in the study three towns indicated table.




  
    Site
    Dog house hold No. (%)
    No dog house hold No. (%)
    Total interviewed No. (%)
  
  
    Dukem
    82 (56.94)
    62 (43.06)
    144 (16.46)
  
  
    Bishoftu
    334 (71.22)
    135 (28.78)
    469 (53.6)
  
  
    Modjo
    183 (69.85)
    79 (30.15)
    262 (29.94)
  
  
    Total
    599 (68.46)
    276 (31.54)
    875 (100)



Table 1: Total doghouse hold and no doghouse hold in the study three towns
indicated table.

Table 2: Restriction status of households dogs from the three towns.




  
    Full  restriction

      No. (%)
    Semi  restriction

      No. (%)
    Free  all     time

      No. (%)
    Total

      No. (%)
  
  
    335 (56.02)
    190 (31.77)
    74 (12.35)
    599 (100)



Table 2: Restriction status of households dogs from the three towns.

Table 3: According to occupation, daily income and religion with vaccination status of their dogs in the study area indicated in the table.




  
    variables
    Vaccination(2016/17)
  
  
    Occupation
    Vaccinated

      No. (%)
    Not vaccinated

      No. (%)
  
  
    Farmer
    6 (22.22)
    21 (77.78)
  
  
    Laborers
    15 (50.00)
    15 (50.00)
  
  
    Private business
    154 (58.11)
    111 (41.89)
  
  
    Employed
    104 (62.28)
    63 (37.72)
  
  
    Other
    69 (66.35)
    35 (33.65)
  
  
    Daily income/day
     
     
  
  
    <40 birr
    84 (52.17)
    77 (47.83)
  
  
    40-100 birr
    117 (58.79)
    82 (41.21)
  
  
    101-200 birr
    89 (63.57)
    51 (36.43)
  
  
    >200 birr
    58 (62.37)
    35 (37.63)
  
  
    Religions
     
     
  
  
    Christian
    338 (62.37)
    238 (37.63)
  
  
    Muslim
    9 (60.00)
    6 (40.00)
  
  
    Others
    1 (50.00)
    1 (50.00)



Table 3: According to occupation, daily income and religion with vaccination
status of their dogs in the study area indicated in the table.

Table 4: Vaccination certificate and purpose of dog keeping for three studied towns.




  
    Types of

      occupation
    With vaccination  certificate

      No. (%)
    Without  vaccination certificate

      No. (%)
    Used for guard

      No. (%)
    Used for herding

      No. (%)
    Used for pet

      No. (%)
  
  
    Farmers
    6 (22.22)
    21 (77.78)
    26 (96.30)
    1(3.70)
    0 (0.00)
  
  
    Labors
    16 (51.61)
    15 (48.39)
    21 (93.55)
    0 (0.00)
    2 (6.45)
  
  
    Privet bus
    154 (57.68)
    113 (42.32)
    217 (81.27)
    26 (9.74)
    24 (8.99)
  
  
    Employed
    104 (61.90)
    64 (38.10)
    156 (92.86)
    9 (4.76)
    4 (2.38)
  
  
    Others
    69 (66.35)
    35 (33.65)
    89 (86.41)
    4 (3.88)
    10 (9.71)
  
  
    Total
    349 (58.46)
    248 (41.54)
    509 (86.42)
    40 (6.79)
    40 (6.79)



Table 4: Vaccination certificate and purpose of dog keeping for three studied towns.

According to occupation and the first knowledge obtained from the people about rabies in the study area the higher percentage questioner survey information indicated that from local community and family and don’t know remember is also at higher percentage but lower percentage of the first knowledge obtained from the people about rabies are from school, local health clinic, media, veterinarian, and newspaper.

According to vaccination status Highest educational level of the family highly associated with to college /university/ and above and high school stages had a defined association, and an association was recorded between the classification of the dog’s vaccination and the education level of the family most of the time more association vaccination status of the dog (p < 0.007 and 0.023, CI=1.239-3.793 and CI=1.018-2.858).

Table 5: Type of occupation and the first knowledge obtained from the people about rabies in the study area.




  
    Occupation
       
    From

      Veterinarian
    From

      Media
    From

      Family
    From

      School
    From

      Local Health

      Clinic
    From

      Local

      Community
    Don’t

      Remember
    Other
    News

      paper
  
  
    Farmer
    1 (5.88)
    0

      (0.00)
    11 (5.31)
    1 (1.23)
    0

      (0.00)
    15

      (3.63)
    7

      (11.11)
    2(33.33)
    0

      (0.00
  
  
    Laborers
    0

      (0.00)
    7

      (8.75)
    13

      (6.28)
    4

      (4.94)
    0

      (0.00)
    27

      (6.54)
    5

      (7.94)
    1(16.67)
    1

      (25)
  
  
    Private
    7

      (41.18)
    31(38.75)
    93(44.93)
    31

      (38.27)
    2

      (66.67)
    189

      (45.76)
    34

      (53.97)
    1(16.67)
    1

      (25)
  
  
    Employs
    9

      (52.94)
    29(36.25)
    52(25.12)
    32

      (39.51)
    1

      (33.33)
    103

      (24.94)
    7

      (11.11)
    2(33.33)
    1

      (25)
  
  
    Others
    0

      (0.00)
    13(16.25)
    38(18.36)
    13

      (16.05)
    0

      (0.00)
    79

      (19.13)
    10

      (15.87)
    0

      (0.0)
    1

      (25)
  
  
    Total
    17

      (100)
    80

      (100)
    207

      (100)
    81

      (100)
    3

      (100)
    413

      (100)
    63

      (100)
    6

      (100)
    3

      (100)



Table 5: Type of occupation and the first knowledge obtained from the people about rabies in the study area.

According to gender females family head are more vaccination to their dogs than males, females greater than males by (OR=1.026 and CI=0.770-1.368) (Table 6).

Table 6: Vaccination status of the doghouse hold according to gender and highest education level of the family in the table.




  
    Vaccination status
    OR
    P – value
    [95% CI]
  
  
    Gender
     
     
     
  
  
    M
    1
     
     
  
  
    F
    1.026
    0.859
    0.770 – 1.368
  
  
    Highest educational level of the family
     
     
     
  
  
    No formal education
    1
     
     
  
  
    Elementary (0 – 6)
    1.469
    0.178
    0.840 – 2.570
  
  
    High school (7 – 12)
    1.758
    0.023
    1.018 – 2.858
  
  
    Technical college trainer
    0.748
    0.550
    0.289 – 1.937
  
  
    College (university) and above
    2.167
    0.007
    1.239 – 3.793



Table 6: Vaccination status of the doghouse hold according to gender and
highest education level of the family in the table.

According to gender females had more vaccination certificate to their dogs than males family head (OR=1.261) (Table 7). Based on the highest education level of the family logistic analysis shows college (university) and above education level has statistically significant to the vaccination certificate of house hold dogs. Comparatively, presence of vaccination certificate on college (university) and above education level people were 3.773 times more than No formal educated people (OR=3.773, P=0.00., CI=1.867-7.625). However, technical college trainers was not statistically significant with vaccination certificate (p>0.05).

Table 7: Vaccination certificate of the doghouse hold according to gender and highest education level of the family in the table.




  
    Vaccination certificate
    Odd ratio
    P – value
    95% CI
  
  
    Gender
     
     
     
  
  
    M
    1
     
     
  
  
    F
    1.261
    0.199
    0.885 – 1.797
  
  
    Highest educational level of the family
     
     
     
  
  
    No formal education
    1
     
     
  
  
    Elementary (0 – 6)
    1.996
    0.049
    1.004 – 3.971
  
  
    High school (7 – 12)
    2.244
    0.007
    1.242 – 4.053
  
  
    Technical college trainer
    1.313
    0.631
    0.433 – 3.977
  
  
    College (university) and above
    3.773
    0.000
    1.867– 7.625



Table 7: Vaccination certificate of the doghouse hold according to gender and
highest education level of the family in the table.

Table 8: Number of marked and recaptured dog populations.




  
    Town
    Block
    No.of marked dogs-n1
    Recaptured marked dogs-m2
    Total     non-marked dogs counted
    Total dogs counted- n2
    Estimated number of dogs per each town    (mean*total No. of sampling blocks
  
  
     
     
     
    AM
    PM
    AM
    PM
    AM
    PM
    AM
    PM
  
  
     
      Bishoftu
    B1
    38
    36
    34
    55
    21
    91
    55
    74

      74*60=

      4440
    63.4

      63.4*60=

      3804
  
  
    B2
    49
    45
    48
    28
    32
    79
    98
  
  
    B3
    75
    63
    63
    41
    18
    110
    91
  
  
    B4
    18
    13
    17
    21
    13
    37
    34
  
  
    B5
    58
    54
    54
    22
    16
    76
    70
  
  
    B6
    48
    45
    46
    60
    45
    105
    91
  
  
    B7
    49
    47
    43
    32
    8
    82
    55
  
  
    B8
    40
    31
    31
    18
    9
    52
    44
  
  
    B9
    18
    18
    18
    42
    28
    60
    46
  
  
    B10
    69
    35
    42
    11
    4
    48
    50
  
  
     
      Modjo
    M1
    28
    25
    26
    26
    26
    56
    57
    79.8

      79.8*21=1676
    74.4

      74.4*21=1562
  
  
    M2
    41
    41
    41
    19
    13
    62
    56
  
  
    M3
    71
    38
    39
    13
    29
    78
    88
  
  
    M4
    60
    59
    57
    71
    39
    137
    102
  
  
    M5
    45
    42
    42
    24
    27
    66
    69
  
  
    Dukem
    D1
    28
    28
    28
    22
    4
    52
    33
    60.25

      60.25*17=1024
    50.75

      50.75*17=863
  
  
    D2
    25
    21
    21
    31
    34
    56
    62
  
  
    D3
    65
    54
    54
    11
    3
    78
    60
  
  
    D4
    23
    20
    18
    33
    22
    55
    48
  
  
    Over all
    Sum
    848
    715
    722
    580
    391
    1380
    1209
    7118
    6236
  
  
    Mean
    44.6
    37.6
    38
    30.5
    20.6
    72.6
    63.6



Table 8: Number of marked and recaptured dog populations.

Table 9: Lincoln Peterson Estimation table.




  
     
      Blocks
    Lincoln Peterson Estimate
    Real count per block
  
  
    Point estimate
    95% CI of the point    estimate
     
  
  
    AM
    PM
    Lower AM
    Upper AM
    Lower PM
    Upper PM
    AM
    PM
  
  
     
  
  
    B1
    96
    61
    90
    102
    57
    66
    91
    55
  
  
    B2
    86
    100
    81
    91
    97
    103
    79
    98
  
  
    B3
    131
    108
    122
    139
    102
    114
    110
    91
  
  
    B4
    51
    36
    39
    63
    33
    39
    37
    34
  
  
    B5
    82
    75
    79
    85
    73
    78
    76
    70
  
  
    B6
    112
    95
    106
    118
    91
    99
    105
    91
  
  
    B7
    85
    63
    82
    89
    60
    66
    82
    55
  
  
    B8
    67
    57
    60
    74
    52
    62
    52
    44
  
  
    B9
    60
    46
    60
    60
    46
    46
    60
    46
  
  
    B10
    95
    82
    83
    106
    76
    88
    48
    50
  
  
    D1
    52
    33
    52
    52
    33
    33
    52
    33
  
  
    D2
    67
    74
    58
    76
    64
    84
    56
    62
  
  
    D3
    94
    72
    88
    100
    70
    75
    78
    60
  
  
    D4
    63
    61
    55
    71
    51
    72
    55
    48
  
  
    M1
    63
    61
    57
    69
    57
    66
    56
    57
  
  
    M2
    62
    56
    62
    62
    56
    56
    62
    56
  
  
    M3
    146
    160
    123
    168
    135
    185
    78
    88
  
  
    M4
    139
    107
    136
    143
    103
    112
    137
    102
  
  
    M5
    71
    74
    67
    74
    70
    78
    66
    69
  
  
    M=Modjo, D=Dukem,    B=Bishoftu



Table 9: Lincoln Peterson Estimation table.

Table 10: Total mean (average of morning and afternoon) dog population count of three towns: Bishoftu, Modjo and Dukem.




  
     
      Reproductive status
     
      Towns
    No. of blocks
    Count

      time
     
      Mean
    (95%CI)Of

      the means
    Estimated

      Dog population
  
  
    Total on map blocks
    Sampled blocks
  
  
     
      Male dogs 
    Bishoftu
    60
    10
    AM
    56.5
    [39.6-73.4]
    3390 [2376-4404]
  
  
    PM
    51.7
    [34.5-68.9]
    3102 [2070-3562.13]
  
  
    Modjo
    21
    5
    AM
    61.0
    [35.1-86.9]
    1281 [737.11824.9]
  
  
    PM
    61.6
    [37.0-86.2]
    1293.6[7771810.2]
  
  
    Dukem
    17
    4
    AM
    41.8
    [16.5-67.0]
    710.6[280.5-1139]
  
  
    PM
    34.0
    [9.7-58.3]
    578 [164.9-991.1]
  
  
    Over all
    98
    19
    AM
    54.6
    [44.2-65.0]
    5351[4332-6370]
  
  
    PM
    50.6
    [39.7-61.5]
    4959[3891-6027]
  
  
     
      Female dogs 
    Bishoftu
    60
    10
    AM
    11.9
    [8.9-14.9]
    714[534-894]
  
  
    PM
    9
    [5.4-12.6]
    540[324-756]
  
  
    Modjo
    21
    5
    AM
    13.4
    [4.7-22.1]
    281[99-464]
  
  
    PM
    9.8
    [3.8-15.8]
    206[80-332]
  
  
    Dukem
    17
    4
    AM
    10.5
    [2.2-18.8]
    179[37-320]
  
  
    PM
    7.25
    [3.7-10.8]
    123[63-184]
  
  
    Over all
    98
    19
    AM
    12
    [181.7-274.3]
    1176[17807-26881]
  
  
    PM
    8.8
    [7.6-28.4]
    862[744.8-2783.2]
  
  
     
      Puppy 
    Bishoftu
    60
    10
    AM
    1.2
    [1-25.1]
    72[60-1506]
  
  
    PM
    1.7
    [1.6-25]
    102[96-1500]
  
  
    Modjo
    21
    5
    AM
    2.6
    [1.9-38]
    50[39.9-798]
  
  
    PM
    0.6
    [0.5-21.8]
    13[10.5-457.8]
  
  
    Dukem
    17
    4
    AM
    1.4
    [1.3-18]
    24[22-306]
  
  
    PM
    6.5
    [6.2-15.7]
    111[105.4-266.9]
  
  
    Over all
    98
    19
    AM
    7.3
    [7.1-9.8]
    715[695.8-960.4]
  
  
    PM
    9
    [7.5-10.3]
    882[735-1009.4]
  
  
     
      Un known sex 
    Bishoftu
    60
    10
    AM
    2.3
    [1.8-8.6]
    138[108-516]
  
  
    PM
    1.1
    [1-3.5]
    66[60-210]
  
  
    Modjo
    21
    5
    AM
    3.2
    [3.1-7.5]
    67[65.1-157.5]
  
  
    PM
    2.4
     
    50
  
  
    Dukem
    17
    4
    AM
    4.5
     
    77
  
  
    PM
    3.0
     
    51
  
  
    Over all
    98
    19
    AM
    10
     
    980
  
  
    PM
    6.5
     
    637
  
  
     
      Total 
    Bishoftu
    60
    10
     
    69.8
    [53.7-85.9]
    4188[3222-5154]
  
  
    Modjo
    21
    5
     
    77.1
    [45.0-109.2]
    1619[945-2293]
  
  
    Dukem
    17
    4
     
    55.5
    [37.6-73.4]
    944[639-1248]
  
  
    Over all
    98
    19
     
    68.7
    [51.1-79.3]
    6733[5694-7771]



Table 10: Total mean (average of morning and afternoon) dog population count of three towns: Bishoftu, Modjo and Dukem.

Estimating the Total Dog Count

The total number of dog counts was made based on recommendation made by the world society for the protection of animals(WSPA) and calculated as the number of dogs counted divided by the number of selected blocks/ the total numbers of blocks on the town’s map. Calculating the number of roaming dogs per unit area within the sample blocks and then multiplying by the area of the city was said to give a biased estimate and not recommended. The total dog estimation of Bishoftu town had be estimate 4188 with in interval between 3222 to 5254 dog numbers estimated, In Modjo town the total estimate of dog population 1619 between the interval 945 to 2293 dog numbers estimated and Dukem town total estimated dog population 944 between the interval 639 to 1248, then the total study towns dog population estimated 6733 with between the interval 5694 to 7771,depanding on this estimated we can prepare adequate vaccine for those study town to cover minimum 70% to 100% vaccinated to the next time.

EAS MONITORING ONCEINTERVENTION BE

Estimated dogs (N) = (n₁+1) (n₂+1)/(m+1)

Variance (N) = [(n₁+1) (n₂+1) (n₁-m) (n₂-m)]/(m+1)² (m+2)

According to Lincoln Peterson Estimation formula, the total dog population in Bishotu counted and estimated at the morning (AM) are, 4440 dogs and afternoon (PM) are 3804 dogs. Respectively Modjo in the morning (AM) are 1676 dogs and afternoon (PM) is 1562 dogs and in Dukem at the morning (AM) counted to 1024 dogs and afternoon (PM) to be counted 863 dogs. The overall estimation dog population in the three towns at the morning (AM) is 7118 dogs and afternoon (PM) counted estimated is 6236 dogs.

Marked status associated with partially restricted and ownerless free roaming dog counted because the p value less than 0.005 or p value=0.0135 and 0.0000 and CI=(7.6-15.9) AM and 13.3-25.2 PM and CI of ownerless free roaming and un marked counted outside=(22.5-38.6) AM and (14.6-26.5)PM. More highly associated from the two was ownerless free roaming dogs indicated the (Table).

Table : Total population of restricted, partially restricted and free roaming dogs of the three towns (n=19).




  
    Total dogs of the three towns
    Mark status and count location
    Count time
    Mean count
    [95% CI]
    P - value
  
  
    Restriction 
    Marked and  counted inside owner’s compound
    AM
    31.0
    [24.1-37.9]
    0.4808
  
  
    PM
    29.8
    [22.8-36.9]
  
  
    Partially restricted 
    Marked counted outside    or un marked counted inside
    AM
    11.8
    [7.6-15.9]
    0.0135
  
  
    PM
    19.2
    [13.3-25.2]
  
  
    Ownerless free roaming 
    Un marked counted    outside
    AM
    30.5
    [22.5-38.6]
    0.0000
  
  
    PM
    20.6
    [14.6-26.5]
  
  
    Over all mean dog count    of the three towns: Bishoftu, Dukem and Modjo 
    68.7
    [58.1-79.3]



Table : Total population of restricted, partially restricted and free roaming dogs of the three towns (n=19).

Discussions

In the present questioner, survey 599 dog-owning households interviewed in the study districts. The households comprise the total number of dogs ranging from 1-9 dogs. Among households interviewed in the study towns 413(68.95%) had one dog, 147(24.54%) had two dogs, 24(4.01%) had three dogs, 11(1.84%) had four dogs, 1(0.17%) had five dogs, 1(0.17%) had six dogs and one (0.17%) had nine dogs. According to the present questioner survey in the study, towns the number of fully movement restricted dogs (dogs kept in the house) were higher than partial restricted and free-living dogs. Of the dog-owning households interviewed in this survey, the majority (at the study towns) owned only one dog (68.95%), most commonly local breed and more commonly male (86.42%). Dogs used to guard houses. The preference appears to relate to guarding duties, given the majority of interviewed households keep dogs for this reason. Most of the time dogs used to guard the interview indicates farmers (96.30%) and employed (92.86%) from and for pet purpose farmers are 0%, labors 6.45 %, private 8.99% and employed 2.38%. This was in agreement with (on the other hand Of the dog-owning households interviewed in this survey, the majority study sites owned only one dog, most commonly local breed and more commonly male. Dogs used to guard houses. The preference appears to relate to guarding duties, given the majority of interviewed households keep dogs for this reason. A preference for keeping dogs for guarding purposes observed in other countries such as Madagascar, Tanzania and the Philippines [26].

In this study, male dogs were higher than female dogs. This was agreement with previous findings documented [27] who reported male dogs outnumber female dogs in the population of free-roaming and restricted dogs. This could be due to the use of male animals as guard dogs and by a higher mortality among female animals due to pregnancy and childbirth [9]. According to occupation and the first knowledge obtained from the people about rabies in the study area the higher percentage questioner survey information indicated that from local community and family and don’t know remember is also at higher percentage but lower percentage of the first knowledge obtained from the people about rabies are from school, local health clinic, media, veterinarian, and newspaper.

According to gender females family head are more vaccination to their dogs than males, females greater than males by (OR=1.026 and CI=0.770-1.368) and According to gender females had more vaccination certificate to their dogs than males family head (OR=1.261) (Table 7). Based on the highest education level of the family logistic analysis shows college (university) and above education level has statistically significant to the vaccination certificate of house hold dogs. Comparatively, presence of vaccination certificate on college (university) and above education level people were 3.773 times more than No formal educated people (OR=3.773, P=0.00.,CI=1.867-7.625). However, technical college trainers was not statistically significant with vaccination certificate (p>0.05).

Dog counting at the urban sites are provided initial data about the unowned dog population in urban. The main limitation of this was utilization of a simple dog population estimation method used to estimate the unowned dog population. This method have not been the best way to estimate the number of dogs [10]. However, the simple method used in this survey was adequate to provide an initial estimate of the ownerless dog population at urban sites, and was appropriate given the limited time period for dog counting (two days at each site) that could completed. In addition, the interview survey conducted should repeat to validate its findings also to monitor changes in dog management practices.

In this study stray dog population identified from the counted survey in study towns were higher than the estimates from markerecupture, this was in line with the results of previous fi1252ndings that estimated dog population by count survey [11]. However, marke-recuptur cannot used to count the confined owned dogs. Although the method cannot distinguish types of dog without having sign or mark, this study conferred the particular limitation by putting different colors for owned and stray dogs, and performing markerecuptur survey soon after. However, reporting bias might still exist. This might be due to stray dogs can be recounted; there was no practice of stray dog population control like spaying and disexing.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The pattern of dog ownership on Bishoftu, Modjo and Dukemtowns’ population of education of dog owners about the control and management of their dogs needed as part of a program to reduce the likelihood of a potential rabies incursion becoming established. There needs to be an emphasis on responsible dog ownership (particularly dog confinement and desexing). Therefore, more researches that are scientific need to executed. Critical attention needed from the country’s responsible bodies focusing on mass dog vaccination campaigns and public awareness to control the risk of rabies in the country.

References

Download PDF

Citation: Tegegne D and Mengesha A. Estimation of Owned and Street Dog Population by Quesionnire Survey and Mark-Recapture Method in Three Urban Areas: Bishoftu, Dukem and Modjo Towns. Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb. 2022; 9(5): 1105.

Home

Journal Scope

Editorial Board

Instruction for Authors

Submit Your Article

Full restriction No. (%)	Semi restriction No. (%)	Free all time No. (%)	Total No. (%)
335 (56.02)	190 (31.77)	74 (12.35)	599 (100)