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 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).
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.
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.
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.
Types of
occupationWith 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).
Occupation
From
VeterinarianFrom
MediaFrom
FamilyFrom
SchoolFrom
Local Health
ClinicFrom
Local
CommunityDon’t
RememberOther
News
paperFarmer
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
(0.00Laborers
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).
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).
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.
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=
444063.4
63.4*60=
3804B2
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=167674.4
74.4*21=1562M2
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=102450.75
50.75*17=863D2
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.
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.
Reproductive status
Towns
No. of blocks
Count
time
Mean
(95%CI)Of
the meansEstimated
Dog populationTotal 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).
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 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 < 0.007and 0.023, CI=1.239-3.793 and CI=1.018-2.858).
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).
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.
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
- Abandonment of dogs in Latin America: review of literature. Continuous Education Journal in Veterinary Medicine and Zootechny of CRMV-SP. 11: 32-39.
- Alves A, Guiloux A, Zetun C, Polo G, Braga G, and Panachão L, et al. 2013.
- Amaral AC, Ward MP, da Costa Freitas J. Estimation of roaming dog populations in Timor Leste. Prev Vet Med. 2014; 113: 608-13.
- Amaral AC, Ward MP, da Costa Freitas J. Roaming urban dogs and the risk of rabies introduction into Timor Leste. Prev Vet Med. 2014; 113: 608-13.
- Archived from the original on. 2011: 11-3.
- Archived November 13, 2011. At the wayback machine. 2012.
- Beck A. The human-dog relationship: a tale of two species. Walling ford: CABI Publishing; 2000: 1-16.
- Beck A. The human-dog relationship: a tale of two species. Walling ford: CABI Publishing; 2000: 1-16.
- Belo VS, Struchiner CJ, Werneck GL, Barbosa DS, de Oliveira RB, Neto RGT, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the factors associated with Leishmania infantum infection in dogs in Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2013; 195:1-13.
- Belsare AV, Gompper ME. Assessing demographic and epidemiologic parameters of rural dog populations in India during mass vaccination campaigns. Prev Vet Med. 2013; 111: 139-46.
- Chaisawa K, Jongrakwattana B, Tongtiang W. Using mark-recapture method to estimate rural dog population size. Tech J Anim Health Sanit Bur Reg. 2008; 6: 1-12.
- Cleaveland S, Fèvre EM, Kaare M, Coleman PG. Estimating human rabies mortality in the United Republic of Tanzania from dog bite injuries. Bull World Health Organ. 2002; 80: 304-10.
- Cleaveland S, Hess G, Dobson A, Laurenson M, McCallum H, Roberts M, et al. The role of pathogens in biological conservation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002: 139-50.
- CSA. National Statistics; 2005.
- Daniels TJ, Bekoff M. Population and social biology of free- ranging dogs, Canis familiaris. J Mammal. 1989; 70: 754-62. doi: 10.2307/1381709.
- Dias RA, Guilloux AG, Borba MR, Guarnieri MC, Prist R, Ferreira F, et al. Size and spatial distribution of stray dog population in the University of São Paulo campus, Brazil. Prev Vet Med. 2013; 110: 263-73.
- Dobson A, Hudson P. Microparasites: observed patterns in wild animal populations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995: 52-89.
- Egenvall A, Hedhammar A, Bonnett BN, Olson P. Survey of the Swedish dog population: age, gender, breed, location and enrolment in animal insurance. Acta Vet Scand. 1999; 40: 231-40.
- Fei S, Chiang J, Fei C, Chou C, Tung M. Estimating stray dog populations with the regression method versus Beck’s method: a comparison. Environ Ecol Stat. 2012; 19: 485-98.
- Fernandez F. Methods for estimating the population parameters by capture mark and recapture. Brasiliensis Ecol. 1995; 2: 01-26.
- Funk S, Fiorello C, Cleaveland S, Gompper M. The role of disease in carnivore ecology and conservation. Cam: Bridge University Press.Cambridge, UK. 2001: 441-66.
- Garcia R, Calderón N, Ferreira F. Consolidation of international guidelines for management of canine populations in urban areas and proposed indicators for their management. Rev Panam Salud Publ. 2012; 32: 140-4.
- Google map location of EARI list of research centers. 2009.
- Haydon DT, Randall DA, Matthews L, Knobel DL, Tallents LA, et al. Lowcoverage vaccination strategies for the conservation of endangered species. Nature. 2006; 443: 692-5.
- Henze, Paul B. Layers of time, a history of Ethiopia. New York: Palgrave; 2000: 332.
- Knobel DL, Laurenson MK, Kazwala RR, Boden LA, Cleaveland S. A crosssectional study of factors associated with dog ownership in Tanzania. BMC Vet Res. 2008; 4: 5.
- Margawani KR, Robertson ID. A survey of urban pet ownership in Bali. Vet Rec. 1995; 137: 486-8.
- Massei G, Miller LA. Nonsurgical fertility control for managing free-roaming dog populations: a review of products and criteria for field applications. Theriogenology. 2013; 80: 829-38.
- Matos M, Alves M, Reichmann M, Dominguez M. Tunica Pasteur São Paulo para dimensionamento de populaçãocanina. Cad SaúdePubl. 2002; 18: 1423-8.
- Nassar R, Mosier J. Projections of pet populations from census demographic data. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1991; 198: 1157-9.
- Briggs P. Ethiopia. Bradt travelguides. 2009: 377.
- Pledger S, Pollock K, Norris J. Open capture-recapture models with heterogeneity: II. Jolly-Seber Model Biom. 2009; 59: 786-94.
- Population and housingcensus of Ethiopia. Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia. Oromiya1: 2007.
- Population and housingcensus of Ethiopia: results for Oromia region. 2007: 1.
- Population and housingcensus of Ethiopia: results for Oromia region. 1994: 1-12.
- Putra A, Gunata I, Asmara I. Dog demography in Badung district the Province of Bali and their significance to rabies control. BuletinVeteriner of BBVet Denpasar. 2011; 78: 15-25.
- Reece JF. Rabies in India: an ABC approach to combating the disease in street dogs. Vet Rec. 2007; 161: 292-3.
- Reece J, Chawla S, Hiby E, Hiby L. Fecundity and longevity of roaming dogs in Jaipur, India. BMC Vet Res. 2008; 31: 4-6.
- Roelke-Parker M, Munson L, Packer C, Kock R, Cleaveland S. et al. A canine distemper virus epidemic in Serengetilions (Panthera Leo). Nature. 1996; 379: 441-445.
- Serafini CA, Rosa GA, Guimaraes AM, De Morais HA, Biondo AW. Survey of owned feline and canine populations in apartments from a neighborhood in Curitiba, Brazil. Zoonoses Public Health. 2008; 55: 402-5.
- Sparkes J, Fleming P, Ballard G, Scott-Orr H, Dürr S, Ward M. Classical rabies in Australia: a review of preparedness and research needs. Zoon Public Health. 2014: 12-142.
- Totton SC, Wandeler AI, Zinsstag J, Bauch CT, Ribble CS, Rosatte RC, et al. Stray dog population demographics in Jodhpur, India following a population control/rabies vaccination program. Prev Vet Med. 2010; 97: 51-7.
- Waltner-Toews D, Maryono A, Akoso BT, Wisynu S, Unruh DHA. An epidemic of canine rabies in Central Java, Indonesia. Prev Vet Med. 1990; 8: 295-303.
- Waltner-Toews D, Maryono A, Akoso BT, Wisynu S, Unruh DHA. An epidemic of canine rabies in Central Ethiopa. Prev Vet Med. 1990; 8: 295-303.
- Wandeler AI, Matter HC, Kappeler A, Budde A. The ecology of dogs and canine rabies: a selective review. Rev Sci Tech. 1993; 12: 51-71.
- Westgarth C, Boddy LM, Stratton G, German AJ, Gaskell RM, Coyne KP, et al. Pet ownership, dog types and attachment to pets in 9-10 year old children in Liverpool, UK. BMC Vet Res. 2013; 9: 102.
- Westgarth C, Boddy LM, Stratton G, German AJ, Gaskell RM, Coyne KP, et al. Pet ownership, dog types and attachment to pets in 9-10 year old children in Liverpool, UK. BMC Vet Res. 2013; 9: 102.
- WHO. Guidelines for dog rabies control. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1987.
- WHO, WSPA. Guidelines for dog population management. Geneva: WHO; 1990.
- Willians B, Nichols J, Conroy M. Analysis and management of animal populations. San Diego: Academic Press; 2002: 23.as: