Who lets the Dog Out? Stray Dogs Emerging as a Potential Threat for Blackbuck and Other Wildlife in Western Haryana, India: A Preliminary Assessment 1 1

Abstract

Two sites in a semi-arid region of western Haryana were evaluated for the stray dog sighting using Scan sampling on an opportunistic basis/random encounter while conducting ecological studies for a period of two years from 2019-20. Monthly mean sightings were calculated from field visits based on random encounters. The chasing and group or pack hunting behaviour exhibited by stray dogs were also observed randomly in single, pair and moderate size packs. Significant presences of dogs were found during the present investigation and data on blackbuck and other wildlife causalities by dogs were also obtained from State Forest Department (2016-2020) revealing that it is a serious concern for wildlife and providing the baseline information to categorize them as only predator in this region. The establishment of dog sterilization cum vaccination centres and regular dog census in wildlife dominated regions are suggested to understand and mitigate this issue and for long term conservation of wildlife in the state of Haryana.

Full text

Who lets the Dog Out? Stray Dogs Emerging as a Potential Threat for
Blackbuck and Other Wildlife in Western Haryana, India: A
Preliminary Assessment
1 1
Vikram Delu *, Dharambir Singh , Sumit
2
Dookia
1Department of Zoology and Aquaculture, ChaudharyCharan
Singh Haryana Agricultural University Hisar, Haryana
125004, India.
2University School of Environment Management, Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi 110078, India.
Keywords: Semi arid; Opportunistic; Stray dog; Mitigate;
Conservation
Study Area: Fatehbad & Hisar, of Haryana, India
Coordinates: 29°25’8.2’’N, 75°34’36.7’’E;
29°01’05.02’’N; 75° 41’41.36’’E
Two sites in a semi-arid region of western Haryana were
evaluated for the stray dog sighting using Scan sampling on
an oppo rtun isti c basis/random encounter while
conducting ecological studies for a period of two years from
2019-20. Monthly mean sightings were calculated from field
visits based on random encounters. The chasing and group
or pack hunting behaviour exhibited by stray dogs were also
observed randomly in single, pair and moderate size packs.
Significant presences of dogs were found during the present
investigation and data on blackbuck and other wildlife
causalities by dogs were also obtained from State Forest
Department (2016-2020) revealing that it is a serious
concern for wildlife and providing the baseline information
to categorize them as only predator in this region. The
establishment of dog sterilization cum vaccination centres
and regular dog census in wildlife dominated regions are
suggested to understand and mitigate this issue and for
long term conservation of wildlife in the state of Haryana.
Abstract
Introduction:
Dogs (Canis familiaris) are characterized as generalist as
well as opportunistic predators due to high variation in
their diet ranging from scavenging on garbage, human
faeces, reptiles, and birds to medium size wild animals etc.
For years, dogs survived and lived as companions of humans
and remained dependent on anthropogenic food subsidies
and that’s why they were always found around human
settlements. Along with this, in some areas, they have
generally assumed the role of subordinate mesopredators
due to the presence of large predators in Africa and North
America where guilds of predators are relatively diverse and
intact (Butler et al., 2004; Ritchie & Johnson, 2009). They
are potentially effective predators the world over and
capable of killing a significant number of species across the
range of taxa and body sizes (Vanak et al., 2010; Young et al.,
2011). A single free-ranging dog has killed about 500 Kiwis
(Apteryx australis) in New Zealand out of a population of
900 Kiwis in a few months (Taborsky, 1988). Most
importantly, domestic dogs have contributed to the
extinction of 11 vertebrate and are a potential threat to 188
threatened species globally (Doherty et al., 2017). As per
estimation by the World Health Organization, India alone
is home to more than 25-30 million domestic dogs and
definitely, a matter of serious concern, even if they consume
a meagre of wildlife in their diet, will have a high impact on
wildlife. In India, stray dogs are preying on varieties of
wildlife including blackbuck (Jhala & Giles, 1991; Jhala,
1993). Dogs are generally used to facilitate hunting, protect
owner property, or reduce human-animal conflicts by
safeguarding livestock from predators or peoples (Khan,
2009). When they are neglected or no longer needed, they
often become either feral or free-roaming. In some regions,
they are most abundant carnivore and significantly affect
the ecosystems (WHO-WSPA, 1990).
Dogs have been considered a trusted companion of
human beings all over the world since time immemorial
and have passionately as a dependable support for their
pursuit of food and safer havens of living. This has gradually
reached a situation where dogs now occupy a distinguished
space of companionship in the life of humans. The vast
majority of people take them as an emotional subject. On
the other hand, in Haryana, many wildlife species are
sharing the same landscape with humans for survival on the
marginal land around human settlements. But the
ubiquitous presence of stray dogs in certain wildlife
dominated areas of western Haryana has come to pose an
altogether different matrix of ecological and social issues.
To evaluate the threat directly posed by stray/feral (un-
ISSN- 2348 5191 (Print) & 2348 8980 (Electronic)
*Corresponding Author:
AMBIENT APPRAISAL
Vol. 09(2): 01-04
Year 2022
ambient
SCIENCE
Ambient Science, 2022: Vol. 09(2); 01-04
DOI:10.21276/ambi.2022.09.2.aa01

owned) dogs in western Haryana, a survey was conducted.
Significant presence of stray dogs have been reported in and
around the Hisar district where they reportedly chase and
prey on Blackbuck and Nilgai; the population of both the
ungulates harbouring in isolated patches within restricted
habitat surrounded with high human habitation (Delu et
al., 2021). Therefore to address this issue, a study has been
conducted to record the opportunistic sighting of stray
dogs, and their chasing or hunting mechanism more
specifically on blackbuck in two non-protected wildlife
dominated areas of semi arid region of western Haryana.
Study area descriptions: two sites in the semi-arid region
were selected; in and around the Badopal area of district
Fatehabad and the Mangali-Rawatkhera region of Hisar
district. Both the sites are dominated by the Bishnoi
community which has high reverence and tolerance
towards blackbuck due to religious sentiments. The sites
lie in biogeographic province 4-A, Semi-arid, Punjab
Plains (Rodgers et al., 2000) with ‘Trans-Gangetic Plains
Regions’ agro-climatic zone under the ‘Arid to Semi-arid’
climatic region, and characterized by aridity, scanty
rainfall and extremes of temperature. The xerophytes are
the dominant vegetation in sites and are characterized as
‘tropical thorn forests’. These sites are natural patches
surrounded by a semi-arid agroecosystem with high
hu man hab itation. The cultiva tion of fields at
Mangali–Rawathkhera desert land mainly depends on the
rainfall. Adjoining fields are used to grow crops such as
wheat, maize, other cereals, cotton, and pulses. The
Blackbuck and Nilgai are the two main ungulate species
harboured there along with the other fauna and flora of the
semi-arid ecosystem.
Method: scan s a mpling (Altma n , 1974 ) o n an
opportunistic basis/random encounter was used to record
the dogs sighting in the Badopal area in 2019 and 2020 and
from Mangali –Rawatkhera area in 2020 while studying the
wildlife behaviour. Local people’s perceptions were also
helped during data collection.
The monthly average of sightings was calculated from
field visits and the chasing behaviour of dogs was noted
opportunistically in a random manner with binoculars
from vantage points. The chasing behaviour of dogs was
reported more specifically to Blackbuck than Nilgai.
A Nikon COOLPIX P900 digital camera and Nikon
ACULON binoculars (8×42, 8°) were used for photography
and taking observations from long distances without
disturbing the normal activity of the animals.
Observations on stray dog’s average frequency of chasing
the Blackbuck and other wildlife by the investigator and
people at Badopal, Mangali and Rawatkhera villages,
during the field survey of the present investigation
Methodology :
Results:
revealed that there was a significant presence of feral dogs
throughout the year (Fig.-2) but maximum sightings were
observed during the breeding season of Blackbuck
between February to March as well as August and
December because, at the time of parturition, females are
more prone. Newborn to small young ones were more
prone to dogs's attacks, sub-adults were also on their radar,
though the adult males were not much affected by the
presence of stray dogs in the habitat. 5.5, 5.3 and 4.5 were
the mean annual sighting of stray dogs at BA 2019, BA 2020
and M-R 2020 respectively (Fig.-1).
Chasing Mechanism: The stray dog’s packs were
reportedly attacked by the wildlife but sometimes they
attacked single-handedly or in a pair. Interestingly attacks
were also observed by the packs of dogs, the latter followed
a strategy in which more than two dogs spot the weakest or
youngest one in the herd and chase the prey and if any
member is of the predatory pack is exhausted, another dog
replaced that exhausted one, consequently after a long
chase, the prey got tired and ultimately attacked at their
posterior region to control it. Total 9, 7, and 12 chasing as a
single were reported from BA 2019, BA 2020 and M-R 2020
respectively. Chasing by stray dogs in pairs and by forming
packs were reported 14,10,8 and 8, 6, 5 from BA 2019, BA
2020 and M-R 2020 respectively (Fig.-2). The possible risk
of zoonotic disease transmission always remained high as
the same habitat was also shared by wild animals and stray
dogs.
Interestingly, a similar trend is also very much evident
in the information gathered from Haryana State Forest
Department and which was also published in the different
national and vernacular daily newspapers explaining the
severity of dogs on wildlife, from January 2016 to May 2020
in the Hisar Division and within 4 years 361 blackbucks
were killed only by dogs followed by illness (23), other
reasons (23) and poaching (4). Along with Blackbuck,
these mongrels are also posing a severe threat to large-
bodied antelope Nilgai/Rojh and a total of 1641 killed
followed by 25 Peafowl, 29 Chinkara and 35 Monkey were
also killed by the dogs (Table-1).
Stray or free-ranging dogs have emerged as a potential
predator for wildlife dominated areas of western Haryana.
Anthropogenic activities have caused irreparable loss to
the native species in their natural habitat. Many
immediate and long-lasting effects include habitat loss,
infectious disease, and exotic species have been evaluated
worldwide for their impact on wildlife and among them,
the stray/ free-ranging dogs have been ranked high
(Hughes & Macdonald, 2013). Domestic dogs also have a
negative impact on local wildlife through predation, food
competition, fear-mediated behavioural changes, disease
transmission and hybridization (Banks & Bryant, 2007;
Discussion:
Ambient Science (2022) Vol.-09(2):p. 02
http://www.caves.res.in/
AMBIENT APPRAISAL
Ambient Science, 2022: Vol. 09(2); 01-04
DOI:10.21276/ambi.2022.09.2.aa01

http://www.caves.res.in/
Ambient Science (2022) Vol.-09(2):p. 03
AMBIENT APPRAISAL
Ambient Science, 2022: Vol. 09(2); 01-04
DOI:10.21276/ambi.2022.09.2.aa01
Figure-1: Dogs sighting at two locations; BA; Badopal area and MA;
Mangali -Rawatkhera
Figure-2: Observed Chasing by Dogs at BA and M-R.
Table 1: Wildlife death record of Hisar Division from January 2016
to May 2020 (Source – State Forest Department, Haryana)
Death by Black Buck Peacock Chinkara Monkey Nilgai/Rojh Others
Dogs 361 25 29 35 1641 14
Poaching 4 12 2 3 46 53
Illness 23 23 4 3 31 7
Others 23 8 0 33 287 15
411 68 35 74 2005 89
Single
Pair
Packs
BA 2019
M-R 2020
BA 2020
Bergman & Bender, 2009; Ritchie et al., 2014; Furtado et al.,
2016; Zapata-Ríos & Branch 2016; Bassi et al., 2017; Doherty
et al., 2017).
Stray dogs share a habitat mostly with wildlife, of them
few are endangered species in Haryana and India. Home et
al. (2017) reported that dogs generally attack 80 species of
wildlife and out of these 31species have been included in
the IUCN Red List of threatened species, including four
Critically Endangered species of India. Dogs were reported
to attack mainly by forming packs and 45% of their chase
leads to the death of the prey. Approximately 48% of the
incidents have been reported in and around the protected
areas, suggesting their large-scale edge effect in protected
areas in India. Stray dogs have been found as the main
factor responsible for wildlife injury and mortality among
all other factors as per the record of the wildlife rescue
centre at Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Bhardwaj et al., 2018). The
present study also assessed the threats to wildlife by dogs at
study sites of western Haryana and found them potential
and emerging, only predators for blackbuck and other
fauna. The dogs attacked the wildlife by forming packs and
Plate-1: a) Adult male blackbuck after natural death at Badopal, b) A
sub adult male killed by feral dog at Balashmand, c) Female
killed by dog, d) A large group of dogs in blackbuck habitat, e)
Dogs sharing habitat with blackbuck and Nilgai at Dhangar,
Fatehabad, f) Fearless adult male Blackbuck and Nilgai
more sightings and casualties were reported during the
breeding season, especially during parturition time as the
mother and the fawns are more prone to attack.
It is noteworthy to mention that in northern Indian
plains, outside the protected areas, no wild predator is
surviving, except a very limited number of Wolves in
sporadic locations. Historically Cheetah (Acinonyx
jubatus) and Wolves (Canis lupus pallipes) were the main
predators of the Blackbuck (Jhala & Isvaran, 2016), as
Cheetah went extinct from the Indian Subcontinent,
therefore, in western Haryana, there are no large
carnivores species harbouring to predate on Blackbuck or
any other wild herbivores. Over the years, this space of
large carnivores is being filled by these dogs and are
emerging as a potential only predator for wildlife
especially juveniles and subadults in locally confined
populations of Blackbuck and Nilgai surrounded by high
human habitation in Haryana.
Conservation implications and Suggestions: Dogs
generally perpetuate themselves as stray when their
owners disown them or born on the streets, for many
reasons therefore they escaped from their owners. As a
result, they freely and unrestrictedly breed and form
themselves into a local population. The breed of mongrels
or crossbreeds become a major cause of concern, forming a
sizable local population and now emerged as a major
problem at wildlife dominated areas surrounds by high
human habitation and leads to becoming a major predator
outside the protected areas in human-dominated
landscapes. A detailed countrywide or state-specific SOP
(Standard Operating Procedure) is required to mitigate
dog-wildlife conf licts. The establishment of dog
sterilization cum vaccination and wildlife rehabilitation

centre can be a solution at the local level where wildlife
harbours outside protected areas. There should be strong
legislation to restrict disowning pet dogs for preventing
them to shift into a stray category. Dogs’ census around
wildlife dominated areas is suggested for risk assessment.
In the context of Haryana, most of the mammalian and
other wildlife are restricted into local confined
populations surrounded by high human habitation and
agricultural intensification, therefore in future there will
be more dog-wildlife conflicts which is also a risk of spread
of zoonotic disease, as these dogs also visit human
surroundings of human settlements, so overall awareness
and groundwork in this regard is a time of need to stop this
only predator for wildlife in western Haryana.
VD and DS are highly thankful for the kind support and financial
assistance provided by the Department of Zoology and
Aquaculture, CCS Haryana Agricultural University Hisar,
Haryana. VD and SD would like to extend special thanks to Vinod
Karwasra, the Haryana state president, Akhil Bhartitya Bishnoi
Jeev Rakshya Sabha for providing data related to wildlife killed by
Dogs and all local stakeholders around the study sites for their
kind support and guidance during the whole survey period.
Banks, P.B. & Bryant, J.V. (2007); Four-legged friend or foe? Dog
walking displaces native birds from natural areas. Biol. Lett.,
3:611-613.
Bassi, E., Canu, A. Firmo, I. Mattioli, L. Scandura, M. & Apollonio,
M. (2017): Trophic overlap between wolves and free-ranging
wolf × dog hybrids in the Apennine Mountains, Italy. Glob.
Ecol. Conserv., 9:39-49.
Bergman, D. & Bender, S. (2009): Dogs gone wild: Feral dog
damage in the United States. In: Proceedings of the 13th
WDM conference, (Ed. J. Boulanger), 177–183. New York:
Saratoga Springs.
Bhardwaj, G.S., Dookia, S. & Dutta, S. (2018): Anthropogenic
mortality of wildlife: a case study demonstrating free ranging
dogs emerging as the only predator in Thar Desert. Indian
Forest., 144(10):947-957
Butler, J.R.A., du Toit, J.T. & Bingham, J. (2004): Free-ranging
domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) as predators and prey in
rural Zimbabwe: threats of competition and disease to large
wild carnivores. Biol. Conserv., 115:369–378.
Campos, C.B., Esteves, C.F., Ferraz, K., Crawshaw, P.G. & Verdade,
L.M. (2007): Diet of free-ranging cats and dogs in a suburban
and rural environment, south-eastern Brazil. J. Zool.,
273:14–20.
Delu, V., Singh, D., Dookia, S., Priya & Kiran (2021): Seasonal food
preferences and group activity pattern of Blackbuck Antilope
cervicapra (L., 1758) (Mammalia: Cetartodactyla: Bovidae) in
a semi-arid region of western Haryana, India. J. Threat. Taxa,
13(13):19937–19947.
Doherty, T.S., Dickman, C.R., Newsome, S.A., Nimmo, T.M.,
Ritchie, D.G., Vanak, E.G., & Wirsing, A.J. (2017): The global
impacts of domestic dogs on threatened vertebrates. Biol.
Conserv., 210:56-59
Acknowledgements:
References:
Furtado, M.M., Hayashi, E.M.K., Allendorf, S.D., Coelho, C.J.,
Jácomo, A.T.A., Megid, J., Filho, J.D.R., Silveira, L.,Tôrres,
N.M. & Neto, J.S.F. (2016): Exposure of free-ranging wild
carnivores and domestic dogs to canine distemper virus and
parvovirus in the Cerrado of central Brazil. Eco Health,
13:549-557.
Home, C., Bhatnagar, Y.V. & Vanak, A.T. (2017): Canine
Conundrum: domestic dogs as an invasive species and their
impacts on wildlife in India. Ani. Conserv., 21(4):1367-9430.
Hughes, J. & Macdonald, D.W. (2013): A review of the interactions
between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife. Biol.,
Conserv., 157:341-351.
Jhala, Y.V. (1993): Predation on blackbuck by wolves in Velavadar
National Park, Gujarat, India. Conserv. Biol., 7:874–881.
Jhala, Y.V. & Giles, R.H. (1991): The status and conservation of the
wolf in Gujarat and Rajasthan, India. Conserv. Biol.,
5:476–483.
Jhala, Y.V. & Isvaran, K. (2016): Behavioural ecology of a grassland
Antelope, the Blackbuck Antilope cervicapra: linking
habitat, ecology and behaviour, pp. 151-176. In: Ecology of
Large Herbivores in South and Southeast Asia. Pub. by:
Springer.
Khan, M.M. (2009): Can domestic dogs save humans from tigers
Panthera tigris? Oryx, 43:44–47.
Long, R.A., Donovan, T.M., Mackay, P., Zielinski, W.J. & Buzas, J.S.
(2007): Effectiveness of scat detection dogs for detecting
forest carnivores. J. Wildlife Manag., 71:2007–2017.
Ritchie, E.G. & Johnson, C.N. (2009): Predator interactions,
mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation. Ecology
Lett., 12:982-998.
Ritchie, E.G., Dickman, C.R., Letnic, M. & Vanak, A.T. (2014):
Dogs as predators and trophic regulators, pp- 55-68. In: Free-
ranging dogs and wildlife conservation, (Ed. M.E.
Gompper), Pub. by: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rodgers, W.A., Panwar, H.S. & Mathur, V.B. (2000): Wildlife
protected area network in India: a review (executive
summary). Pub. by: Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. P.
44.
Taborsky, M. (1988): Kiwi and dog predation: observations in
Waitangi State Forest. Notornis. 35:197- 202.
Vanak, A.T. & Gompper, M.E. (2010): Interference competition at
the landscape level: the effect of free-ranging dogs on a native
meso carnivore. J. Appl. Ecology, 47, 1225-32.
WHO-WSPA (World Health Organization and World Society for
the Protection of Animals) (1990). Guidelines for Dog
Population Management. WHO.
Young, J.K., Olsen, K.A., Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar, S. &
Berger, J. (2011): Is wildlife going to the dogs? Impacts of feral
and free-roaming dogs on wildlife populations. BioSci.,
16:125-132
Zapata-Ríos, G. & Branch, L.C. (2016): Altered activity patterns and
reduced abundance of native mammals in sites with feral
dogs in the high Andes. Biol. Conserv., 193:9-16.
Ambient Science (2022) Vol.-09(2):p. 04
http://www.caves.res.in/
AMBIENT APPRAISAL
Ambient Science, 2022: Vol. 09(2); 01-04
DOI:10.21276/ambi.2022.09.2.aa01