When will the stray dog menace be resolved?
text_fields
News reports and visuals of street dog attacks in Kerala are once again flooding the media. No area in the state is safe from the menace of stray dogs, and relief seems to be far away. The reality is that the authorities are still lagging in both treating the issue with the seriousness it deserves and taking effective action. Although the Animal Husbandry Department had decided to start portable ABC (Animal Birth Control) centres aimed at controlling and reducing the ever-increasing number of street dogs, so far, there has been no progress in implementing these measures. The department had planned to establish centres in selected locations, but it has still not been possible to prepare the necessary estimates or provide the required buildings and facilities. More than twenty street dog sterilisation centres have been operating in the state for years. However, these centres, which function effectively only during periods when the problem becomes severe, have not been able to achieve their objectives. Another issue is that most of these centres are concentrated in urban areas, and further there are some districts without a single centre. While stray dog nuisance was once considered a problem affecting only cities due to higher urban waste, today many villages are also under the grip of the menace, in some cases even more than urban areas. In light of this, the idea of portable centres was conceived, with a plan to implement them initially in seven districts, which is why progress has been slow.
According to figures released, in 2025 alone, 369,272 people in the state sought treatment after being bitten by street dogs, and 33 people died. Looking at the past five years, deaths exceed one hundred, and the number of bite victims is over 150,000. The actual numbers are likely to be even higher. Even vaccinated individuals have succumbed, shaking public confidence in the effectiveness of the medicines. In the case concerning stray dogs, the Supreme Court, which took suo motu cognisance, had directed in its November ruling that stray dogs be removed from public spaces. It also instructed that full-time patrolling be conducted on state and district roads, that schools and government institutions be kept safe, and that local bodies and the police cooperate in implementing these measures. The interim order of the Supreme Court was based on the state government’s affidavit claiming that stray dog population control measures had been implemented. The Court further warned that if authorities fail to control the stray dog menace, the government would have to account for every injury sustained by citizens, and in cases where children or elderly people are injured or killed due to dog attacks, substantial compensation would have to be paid. Submitting affidavits merely to temporarily satisfy the Court, without taking any actual measures to protect people’s lives, is unacceptable. Even months after the Supreme Court directed that school premises be cleared of stray dogs, the government cannot claim to have taken even limited action in this regard. The fact that school grounds have become roaming areas for dogs is severely affecting both children’s education and the mental well-being of parents.
The authorities, who are responsible for protecting human life and property, must urgently implement effective systems to control stray dogs. The necessary staff should be deployed at the existing centres. The current approach of vaccinating and releasing dogs must be revised so that the centres operate in a manner that fully protects people until it is certain that the dogs are no longer dangerous. Centres should be established in every local body, and the responsibility for the protection and control of stray dogs should rest entirely with the local authorities. Each day that remedial measures are delayed puts the lives and peaceful existence of the people of the state at risk.