You think that because you have made a statement / recommendation from the West about what the best approach, it is in some way of going to tie the hands of the government and force them into analytical and effective mode? C’mon. You are that confident of your power to influence a developing country government? If one does not take into account the reality of their infrastructure and budget, what happens IN PRACTICE (not theory) is the following: they just find the easiest way out to sooth the public by giving them the easiest , most emotional Ask - the ‘getting rid of killings ’ usually followed up with giving public CNVR or stuffing all animals in shelters they dont control the quality of life in. Which is exactly what we have seen happen across several countries.

Here is an RSPCA ad from the 80’s. Here Euthanasia necessity / reality was USED to push legislation and social behaviour change in the UK ,  BEFORE good legislation was a reality. Which makes sense as people DON'T act till faced with harsh, cruel or urgent reality, shame and/ or disgust. When all is well the urgency for change is not there . If you think this was needed in the UK, where advocacy asking for more money / laws etc by the RSPCA (that was quiet old and respected by then) without reality taking hold - didn’t work, what do you expect in the developing world? This realistic development of matters is being denied and not practiced now due to desire to not hurt people's feelings. In the end - animals suffer.

’’We have said that CNVR should only be applied when the population is not against stray dogs on the street , we can’t be blamed if the activists didn’t notice it. We can’t help that they got the wrong impression about us recommending CNVR as the main method. It could be because they are less professional/ educated / able to follow the guidance to the dot.’’

Ok.. But did you recommend any other method and discuss it in detail , if the population IS against?

Let’s see how the large charities message is being weaponised and whether its just the ‘uncivilised’ countries animal welfare activists who misinterpret the message.. This is one of the largest US charities and an ICAM member:

https://www.hsi.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/pdfs/why_spayneuter_is_important.pdf

No one is arguing that spay neuter in itself, is not important. It’s this part below, that is being used by animal welfare activists in Eastern Europe to push for dog CNVR in law:

When effectively delivered and combined with vaccinations, spay/neuter provides humane and effective way to reduce the number of animals living on the streets, and improves the health of those remaining. Sterilizing street dogs and returning them to their territories on the streets allows for a natural reduction in their population over time and leaves the most socialized dogs on the streets. We have found that the public views these sterilized and vaccinated dogs (identifiable via an ear notch or other marking) more favourably and the human-dog interaction improves

It is very irresponsible to post such a thing for DOGS without clarifying that this can only work :

1)  in certain developing countries , not in developed. 

2) what to do if a country is going from developing to developed or somewhere in between

3) how much funds and years of commitment is needed to do it “effectively delivered’

This document was one of the things used as an argument in Russia to a) ban euthanasia on federal level (which turned out to be a disaster)  b) write in law CNVR for dogs at federal level without there being any public support (outside of animal activists) or capacity to do it financially in Russian cities.

We contacted HSI to reconsider their wording urgently before the law was being passed. This was their response across 2 emails:

As long as the situation remains with a large street dog overpopulation issue, HSI does suggest mass sterilization and vaccination. Spaying and neutering in place (with Rabies vaccination) does allow for a sustained population of dogs (already accepted dogs in neighbourhoods / society) in a territory for a prolonged period of time, without reproduction, and natural attrition to gradually reduce the population. Dog removal from the streets (whether to shelters or for euthanasia) does not work as there will always be re-population in time.  [How is that true when there was dog removal into open admission shelters across all of the Western world for decades and repopulation didn’t happen??}} And, the dogs that end up in shelters either live in overcrowded, substandard and inhumane conditions until the end of their lives or they are euthanized unless an adoption culture is created among a society [Or they are NOT euthanised because of the stigma of euthanasia you help increase ] . We have also found that reduced mating and litters may increase the level of harmony among street dog populations, and in turn, overall aggression, noise and negative interaction with the public decrease. This evidence is mostly anecdotal, unfortunately, but it’s also the logical result. [We have non-anecdotal actual research papers at the bottom of this article showing that this is non sense]

The reason why TNR projects fail is because people do not know how many dogs of what type (controlled pets, uncontrolled pets, unowned strays) they have to sterilize and they do not continue in a systematic way for years (at least five but preferably 10 to 15 years). Managing dog (and cat) populations in a humane way requires consistent and sustained efforts. It can be done without data on the dog populations but data is very useful when approaching the authorities and supporters. { Which population is going to commit to large population of dangerous stray dogs on the street for 5 + years , let alone 10-15 years? Which animal welfare organisation in the developing world is going to have funds and people and sense for long term data collection, without large foreign funding from Western organisations? The capacity and desire to objectively ASK this question? Forget about funding for 10-15 years of proper CNVR by governments of poor countries. If you want to be useful, let’s be real about things and not talk about great hypothetical scenarios.]

We agree that laws that are not backed by public support or the necessary funding will not work.  We also agree that catching and killing dogs will not work.   The World Health Organization has also made a statement to that effect.   [Whether it works, what catching or killing and where and how has been addressed in the main article on this substack. Here we are just pointing out that CNVR is what is being pushed as the main method and this is understood not just by uneducated people in poor countries who are not always professional and objective, but also by employees of ICAM member organisations.]

Let’s look in more detail at the idea that ‘ activists should first check that the population is not against stray dogs before doing CNVR’. Ok. Great disclaimer. Have you thought about:

• That by being OK with stray dogs do you mean by that annoying but manageable number that they have seen now, whilst some kind of catch / kill/ euthanise system kept the population at a reasonable number, or do you mean the increased number you are going to naturally have in the first 5 years of CNVR? How are the people supposed to predict this? What does logic say - will they be ok with large packs of stray dogs making daily passage for children / cyclists and elderly dangerous? How would your neighbours feel about it or you when you are droppping your kid to school in the morning?

• What is the likelihood of an honest evidence-based assesment of this question by animal welfare activists who have been primed in these documents to view euthanasia as last resort?

• How likely are these activists going to spend money and time , that is already sparse , to do the research in this particular direction? When they can look around in their own , perhaps relatively wealthy and civilised neighbourhood, and infer from it the attitude in the whole region, using their natural bias to reach a conclusion? Basic human nature at work here.

So the questions remains… are the guidance and documents written to achieve a result or are just written to write?

““We are not responsible for the crazy ideas the public gets . ““

This extract below is from head of the most successful municipal shelter in Ukraine, which managed to best solve the stray problem , only one who has practices open admission policy and euthanasia till it was banned across all of Ukraine in 2021.

‘From 2019 we started publishing reports about euthanasia numbers on our website.

We kept this information private (for official use). We responded to all public enquiries that this was confidential information related to the company's financial economic activities. The public sued us, trying to prove that this information should be public. But until 2019, we managed to prove that this is still classified information.

But even in this situation, the pressure on the employees of our enterprise was enormous - zoo fanatics stole photos of our employees from social networks and spread information to the entire animal protection internet community, that our employees are animal killers, sadists, etc. They pasted up flyers with such texts near houses of our workers that all neighbours knew who lived near them, some absolutely crazy even appealed to schools and kindergartens, informing that the child of sadistic animal-torturer etc. is studying here. Do you understand the scale of the pressure on our shelter? Of course in the aftermath all of our employees have deleted or closed their accounts in social networks, refused to participate in video and photo shoots, etc.

Because of the huge number of caught dogs that we were unable to conceal compared to the initial small number of adoptions, because we kept secret information about the number of euthanasia , unfortunately, the crazy fanatics managed to spread the myth about our shelter being a cruel slaughterhouse all over Ukraine. They have been spreading the fake news in social networks, saying that our trappers are performing experiments on animals, ripping animals out of their owners' hands, stealing animals by trespassing on private property, claiming that we are killing animals to get income from the city budget, and many other disgusting and black lies. When people, brainwashed by these people, came to us to ‘rescue’ the animals from torture, they were shocked to see that there was nobody to save, that all the animals were well taken care of, and when they saw the groups of schoolchildren with whom we held humane education lessons in the shelter, they saw the workers' attitude towards the animals, and so on. And if after that, the visitor started to stand up for the shelter in social networks, the crazy animal welfare brigade immediately attacked them, mercilessly harassed them and drove people to nervous breakdowns.

Our workers do not advertise where they work, though our company still remains the best shelter in Ukraine for European standard and the welfare of animals in the shelter.’

Is any of the large , ICAM organisations standing behind Yulia , the brave woman running this shelter? Are examples like these included in papers? Is craziness like this amongst animal welfare people frowned upon and discussed as something to be avoided , when the Western charities write long guidance for how to do animal welfare? The answer is NO - the people and organisations doing this are not vetted for their radical views on euthanasia - they sometimes even get grants from western orgs, to feed strays and implement CNVR .
Only nice , bland and vague things are included in ‘guidance’, whilst the “unpleasant” reality is ignored.

Let’s look at something else :

https://dutchreview.com/culture/how-did-the-netherlands-become-the-first-country-to-have-no-stray-dogs/

’How did the Netherlands manage to eradicate its stray dog problem?

Not through euthanasia! Hurray!

The Dutch achieved it through the CNVR programme (Collect, Neuter, Vaccinate, and Return), a nationwide, government-funded sterilisation programme. The World Animal Protection Agency believes it’s the most effective way to combat a stray dog population.’

This article has been copied and spread on many other resources / websites and widely used to argue the case for CVNR for dogs. The thing is its completely false - no dogs were released back on to the streets in Holland. The article is a complete fabrication. We have had meetings with the lovely people at WAP - they are absolutely not pro CNVR for dogs in Eastern Europe and are pro euthanasia as part of a comprehensive approach, as are we. However, if one does a basic google search of their views ONLINE - it is not surprising for someone to pull this line out and use their Authority to argue legislation.

This is the manipulation that becomes possible if one does not say things as they are. This creates a further net of lies.

“Euthanasia is a sensitive topic publicly and it will damage are fundraising.”

Now we are getting somewhere. The above, whilst can be understandable, has to be explored deeply to decide if its actually true. This perception was not always present - public was understanding in the past about the need to euthanise those animals that people didnt have the desire/ ability to take care off and those who were not ‘adoptable’ (a very broadly used term) . Yes public doesn’t like it and public doesn’t want it anymore, but for that to be a reality, public needs to go through a natural growing up process of more responsible animal ownership and larger support of animal welfare organisations. You can’t put the cart before the horse in Western Countries and you surely can’t do it in developing or quasi-developing.

Somehow Peta managed to maintain multimillion $ annual fundraising over the years, whilst speaking the truth:

No Kill shelter policies killing animals : https://www.peta.org/issues/animal-companion-issues/animal-shelters/no-kill-policies-slowly-killing-animals/

There is a way to write about difficult subjects in a way that you can’t be attacked by the majority, only by very shallow people. It requires effort and thought. One thing is clear - reducing the quality of information to the level of the shallowest online troll i NOT going to produce good outcomes. Better say nothing at all then.

Thank you for reading. Any comments and feedback can be left in the discussion at the bottom of the article or at winter5000@gmail.com .

_____________________________________________

Below are papers showing that neutering does not make dogs less aggressive as commonly believed and spread as anecdotal evidence that then is considered truth. (whilst at the same time we are very pro neutering of owned/ shelter dogs. In this context we are addressing one of main pro CNVR myths) :

Borchel P.L. Aggressive behaviour of dogs kept as companion animals: Classification and influence of sex, reproductive status and breed // Applied Animal Ethology 1983, 10(1-2), Р.45-61

Wright J.C., Nesselrote M.S. Classification of behavior problems in dogs: Distributions of age, breed, sex and reproductive status // Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1987; 19(1-2), Р.169 - 178

Podberscek A.L., Serpell J.A. The English Cocker Spaniel: preliminary findings on aggressive behaviour // Applied Animal Behaviour Science – 1996. – 47(1), P. 75-89.

Guy N.C., Luescher U.A., Dohoo S.E., Spangler E., Miller J.B., Dohoo I.R., Bate L.A. Demographic and aggressive characteristics of dogs in a general veterinary caseload // Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2001; 74 (1), Р.15-28.

Perez-Guisado J., Munoz-Serrano A. Factors Linked to Dominance Aggression in Dogs // Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 2009; 8(2): Р.336-342.

Kim HH, Yeon SC, Houpt KA, Lee HC, Chang HH, Lee HJ. Effects of ovariohysterectomy on reactivity in German Shepherd dogs. // Vet J. 2006 Jul;172(1):154-9.

Yuying Hsu, Liching Sun Factors associated with aggressive responses in pet dogs // Appl Animal Behav Sci – 2010. – 123(3), P 108-112

The situation didn’t occur because of bad intentions. However exploring the issue frankly is vital for the sake of  millions of animals, who are suffering and will continue to suffer if the issue is left unadressed. PART 1 describes what is going on and how we got here. PART 2 has more detail and nuance for NGO employees in the space. Recommendations are included in the conclusion.

Whilst the concrete examples discussed here are across broader Eastern Europe and surrounings, potential implications outside of Eastern Europe (e.g. Asia or  South America and other emerging markets) should be further explored, but this is outside the scope of this article.

Public shelter in Romania

PART 1 – ‘THIS IS HOW TO BE HUMANE”  (if you can afford it) 

If I am an animal charity from a ‘medium human development’, but not ‘rich’  country, for example Ukraine/ Romania/Turkey or Russia, and I want to improve the situation with large amounts of stray dogs in my country: Who do I go to for guidance on how it is done?  I go to the most successful Western organizations who have spent time and money doing projects abroad and are from countries where there are no stray animals and animal welfare is advanced. Luckily they have written guidance documents on what people like me should do to resolve issues with large numbers of stray dogs.

 How are they doing it and what are they saying?

They finance CNVR (Catch Neuter Vaccinate and Release back on the street) programmes in selected towns of some countries around the world. They promote CNVR programmes for dogs as an effective and most humane method that has worked elsewhere. They have full guidance on dog population management, explaining how everything should happen in theory. After all, they made it work  somewhere (using large grants) .

 Clearly if I look at the countries that these organizations are from (Europe, UK, US) and I look at how animals are treated there, I think they have the problems pretty much sorted and it looks like paradise to me. So clearly I will listen to what they have to say about what I should propose my government does with our stray dogs.  

I see these charities talking about a humane approach as the only way. I read “humane” as no-kill because how can “killing” be humane? No one has taught me this part and no one ever will,as it is not on anyone’s agenda to talk about how open admission shelters with euthanasia can be the humane alternative under many conditions and what part it has played in achieving the great situation the countries who pursued it, have now.

Releasing stray dogs without a supply of food resulting in attacked farm and wild animals and destruction of millions of cats .

 But most importantly, what do I not see if I look at their guidelines and writings?

•           I don’t see any information that in Western countries euthanasia of healthy surplus animals was commonplace and, in some places, still is (although much reduced).

•  That without this mass euthanasia, the situation would have arguably been different.

•     That it took DECADES and hundreds of millions of $/Euro/£ of expenditure by philanthropists to grow the animal welfare NGOs and provide discounted/ free neutering for Companion animals of low income population.

• That this growth of shelters and making them attractive to visit, was happening WHILE mass euthanasia was happening so the strained animal welfare people and NGOs had the breathing space to develop as opposed to jumping from one emergency and overcrowding to another.

• I would see that the government in most countries didn't contribute finances beyond catching services and would not consider or fund neutering of street dogs and returning them to the streets. One of the reasons being public safety and acceptance.

•  I would see that ALL shelters that keep animals longer than 2 weeks are privately funded.

•  That no Western city will tolerate stray dogs on the streets or introduce dog catch neuter vaccinate release (CNVR) as a method to reduce stray dog population.

•   I would also see that CNVR of Dogs does not have evidence of having worked anywhere in the world outside of specific, contained areas and under specific conditions - small islands, Asian style of animal keeping (all dogs are community dogs) OR when combined with non-return capture programme as was done in some countries of Southern Europe. In addition, a huge multi-year expenditure is funded by foreign organizations.

•  Let’s also forget the reality that all CNVR ideas are proposed from wealthy countries with functioning democracies with low levels of corruption, but aimed at countries which have anything but this situation.
  
  

  

  
  Dog from CNVR programme killed by vigilante
  

  

  
  Poisoned dogs (Daily find in Russia, Bulgaria and Ukraine (pre War) 

So the typical animal welfare advocate from Ukraine/ Russia/ Serbia/ Romania/ Bulgaria etc sees half a picture that looks good “hey, it’s all possible to be humane and kind now, the way forward has apparently ‘worked’ somewhere. (nevermind the conditions and finances (to be discussed further)

They want to be “humane”, of course, and the western charities tell them that euthanasia is only the last resort ...Nothing and no one talks about how euthanasia, as part of a plan to realistically reduce stray population, can be humane and necessary and has been used in Western Europe for decades and is still used in some countries including the USA

The activists in Eastern Europe are getting this false picture showed to them, that is completely unachievable given the realities of their countries (applies to most in all cases):

• initial large population of dogs, mostly large-sized and dangerous to people

• poor shelter infrastructure 

• issues with availability of educated vets and affordable anesthesia

• low income level of population

• non-existent buffer in reserves in animal welfare philanthropy - sector is completely undeveloped

• corruption

• Western style of dog and cat ownership as opposed to developing world (every dog is a community dog)

• Majority of the population inherently don’t like street dogs and don’t want them there for reasons of safety and / or sightliness.

From this starting point of utopia, they then go and blame the government (and we by no means are on the side of those governments who aren’t striving to resolve these problems) who 'just kills' and 'doesn’t execute proper CNVR' or is corrupt.

Where in the world has a government ever executed proper CNVR of dogs? Maybe in London/ Paris/ Stockholm or Vienna, where they clearly have the funds and ‘ethical’ development to do so, they released thousands of dogs back on the streets?

In addition, if not CNVR, which government will spend the same on dog shelters as their education budget, when a large percentage of their people are living below poverty level?

 Wouldn’t it be better if the Western orgs said honestly - our ideal humane construct and the result we now have in the UK, Germany etc is impossible in your country unless it has XYZ? You need to start where we started (limiting street numbers to a more manageable amount for your population, using a non-return shelter system) and not put the cart before the horse. With patience and work with the population over some years you will grow out of lots of euthanasia to near 0, but that initially you can’t do without it. And you definitely cannot do any constructive population work if there are just too many animals - because as an animal person this is what you are going to do first  - hoard and try and rescue all the surplus animals! At the same time, you are unlikely to have money/ space/time to provide acceptable living conditions to all the animals you rescue.   In the alternative case you or your government will be piling up animals in horrid conditions a la concentration camps and / or leaving the animals on the street to attack/ kill children and elderly and kill cats and other small animals This is how you propagate a cycle of hate and vigilantism towards street animals AND the people who try to protect animals. Where is the research paper on THAT after all the dog CNVR programmes that were tried?

Irkutsk , Russia dog shelter after euthanasia ban (pre war)

Another typical shelter in Russia where no one is socializing, water in buckets freezes and food is often your neighboring fellow dog.

However, talking about euthanasia and open admission shelters being a necessary part of dealing with big stray problems is politically incorrect and risks creating online and offline haters, which the PR and fundraising departments of these large charities can’t accept.he large NGO, pushing this policy, prefers to only be linked to ‘humane’ solutions - arguing that euthanasia of healthy animals can be much more humane than the alternative, is risky for reputation and hence donations

Is this because the donor population is considered stupid or unable to follow a line of argument and clearly see how horrid the alternative is?Are they afraid that on balance the donors will respond more to a troll who says that charity is calling to kill all animals more than to a well-argued piece by the charity itself?

We worry this is not even being discussed as the donors are being infantilized and everyone fears the online mob. How much does the common knowledge of ‘things we can’t talk about’ impact our thinking about what is true and right?

 Due to the oversight and biased, unexamined  communication by ICAM and International Organisations like Humane Society International and others, their recommendations have been misapplied and led to great animal suffering. Our suspicion is that what has gone wrong in Eastern Europe might have also happened in some places in South America, however it is beyond the scope of this article.

Let’s take as an example the latest update from ICAM Humane Dog Population MAnagement Guidance 2019 . In reality this document should come with a bold disclaimer on top , saying only to be used by places that have secured multi year substantial funding from private organizations or said rich private organizations when evaluating and helping design programs. Only to be used by groups that have funding and people for work like a widespread survey and community outreach . If there is no one to do this community and preparatory examination work , then you sadly don’t have a chance to be humane in this lifetime or just better not read these guidelines. Whilst having smart sounding theories, if one probes a bit - it all falls apart on funding, environment, awareness and assumptions.

But what is the alternative, one might ask?

And here the charities become a bit cheeky and don’t mention the widespread success and application of a 3rd option - open admission shelters - a system , whose inherent design already incorporates the ability of a certain region / country to carry a certain amount of dogs. It is not only for the wealthy and backed by large budgets . It has a history , in Western countries, of giving the undeveloped animal philanthropy sector the necessary breathing room to develop nice looking shelters people actually want to adopt from, organize subsidized or free neutering for pets of the poor, do things like social ads and humane education - all unaffordable and unrealistic luxuries for those who have to deal with packs of dogs on the street, no real infrastructure and no end in sight, because CNVR  cannot work in those situations .

Western people 20-40 years ago were not less humane than average people in developing countries nowadays . Why did they practice open admission shelters and euthanasia was not a taboo? Is this because of social media and “cancel culture”? Why is no one talking about it? How it made sense, given no one in their right mind would release excess dogs to the city streets and there were budget / infrastructure limits and not enough people willing to house 20-40 animals. And as these limitations improved , the amount of euthanasia dropped, in some places to 0.

 The way human nature works is that changes only really occur when a human has either a sense of urgency or a very strong or adverse feeling, like shame, that leads to a realization he cannot continue in the old way.. No one ever changed a strong character trait or won against an addiction because they felt good about themselves . No, they do it only after they feel disgusted with themselves.

How did France change its attitude and from which point better laws were adapted? After the outrage where the French were faced with the final result of their lax attitude to pets 

 Of course with our overpowering humane instinct we think we can skip this necessary step of societal education into more responsible pet owners. But reality proves different and it's only logical that it would, given an understanding of human behavior and what changes it. When the worst outcome (death for most) is avoided because someone else is ‘taking care’ of the problem , then why would one change into a more responsible owner ? We have seen many animal advocates and shelter owners notice this in Russia - after the euthanasia ban and CNVR introduction was passed, they noticed a sharp decline in volunteer effort across all shelters and more self-walking , releasing dogs out of the house without owners.

Why  neuter my pet if the government is going to trap and neuter, then they'll release him back and maybe he'll come back or not, in any case there is no threat of death, so it's ok.

In the nextpart we look at the realities of CNVR in more detail and analyze the technical oversight by ICAM and Western NGO’s: points that should be thought about before recommending a policy in the future. We also explore potential paths to fixing the situation.

Turkey government shelters (but hey - euthanasia is bad):

PART 2 - CNVR Experience (all foreign language research and analytical papers are in the process of being translated to English, for those that still remain untranslated , google translate can be used. All sources used with English subjects and links are listed in the attachment as well)

CNVR has been applied in Eastern Europe and surroundings mostly in Turkey and former Soviet countries, Bulgaria, Romania and in certain cities in the Balkans.

Let's take Turkey, where CNVR for dogs has been legal for more than 15 years. What did this method bring to the country? The answer is in this recent article in one of the larger papers . In short, the problem of stray dogs has remained the same. With all the consequences of that. Including the recent death of a child from rabies after being bitten by a street dog. In response , there were bursts of illegal cruel destruction of the dogs. CNVR also brought extreme polarization of public views on how to solve the problem. Endless and fruitless debates continue, in which mutual hatred boils between those who are in favor of the extermination of dogs and the CNVR animal protectionists. The country is at a dead end with no visible way out.  The author of the article writes about this with concern.

The largest post-Soviet countries that use CNVR as the main method for dogs are Russia and Ukraine. Kazakhstan has only recently begun to apply CNVR, while in Belarus this method is not used for dogs.

Let’s take Russia as an example. In the Soviet Union and during the transition period, either the destruction of dogs happened immediately upon capture, or after a short stay for three days and then destruction was used. Moreover, painful muscle relaxants were used without anesthesia (death by asphyxia basically, lasting several minutes). There were less strays than now, but the effect on the number/ reduction of strays was limited, since the catchers were unprofessional, were interested in a quick continuous income, and therefore left part of the dogs so they could breed, and people hid the other part of the dogs, saving them from death. The animal welfare movement as a whole grew out of opposition to such regulation. 20 years ago activists had neither knowledge nor experience.

Having learned about experiments with CNVR in India and the countries of Southern Europe, Russian activists immediately decided to introduce it in the country. At the same time, many of the preliminary measures that are written about in the current ICAM recommendations were not applied as for those measures to be applied a certain level of development and wealth is needed as we will see. For example, there were no studies on the nature and extent of problems caused by stray dogs, sources of replacement of the number of stray dogs, the theoretical basis of the CNVR method (for example, the required minimum % of neutered bitches over a determined period of time in order to be significant enough to be effective), no comparison study of different places  using CNVR in the world, and the real experience of dealing with dog overpopulation of Western type of dog keeping countries (majority of dogs are kept inside/ belong to an owner  and are not ‘community’ dogs). 

THE MAIN MOTIVATION OF CNVR INTRODUCTION WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF ALLEGEDLY ENDING THE KILLING IMMEDIATELY. 

Moreover, the motive was brought to the most radical extreme - the possibility of introducing humane methods of euthanasia as a better alternative for the animals, the reasons for it, etc. were not even considered. Putting a healthy animal to sleep, for whatever reason, was demonized and rejected unconditionally. Since no one carried out work on the study of the theory of CNVR and its history of practical application, a completely distorted point of view on the CNVR method prevailed widely, which later formed the basis of the national legislation on animals. For some time, the thesis was even widely circulated that it was the CNVR that led to the sorted situation in Western countries, which is completely false.

Destruction of millions of cats and hundreds of thousand wildlife

The first experience of using CNVR in Moscow for 8 years ended in a complete failure . Scientific counts of the number of stray dogs were carried out, which showed an increase in the number of 1.5 times over 6 years. The number of pack attacks on people has sharply increased, 3 deaths have been recorded. Other animals suffered greatly from the attack of packs: wild animals (from ground birds to elk) in urban forests, as well as street cats, almost completely exterminated by dogs . Finally, a phenomenon arose that even received its own unique name: dog hunters - people who independently brutally exterminate stray dogs under the pretext of ensuring the safety of themselves and their loved ones.

Typical kids’ playground in Russia

The CNVR program in Moscow was closed in 2009 by the authorities and replaced by intensive capture of animals in huge shelters, 1500-3000 dogs in each, resembling concentration camps. This measure alone reduced the number of stray dogs by several times in about 2-3 years.

However, NO conclusions were drawn from the CNVR failure in Moscow. The state has not created an expert council under any authority that would allow us to analyse the experience of Moscow. The same lobbyists supporting =CNVR went to the federal level, and 8 years later the Federal Law of Russia was adopted, where CNVR was declared the main method.

 The consequences of it today are extremely negative, including numerous cases of human deaths. For example, only in the winter-spring of 2022, people died in the regions: Yakutia, the Trans-Baikal Territory, Astrakhan. Against this background, injuries and illegal cruel extermination of dogs have grown. A decrease in the number is recorded only where, instead of or together with the CNVR, certain methods of irretrievable capture are used. These are the so-called gray schemes (for example, taking animals to other cities or to the countryside), or accumulation in shelters.

In this regard, it is bewildering that this negative experience has not been properly analyzed by international organizations either, although something similar has happened before (for example, in Romania, which eventually abandoned CNVR and stuffed the animals e in shelters with dubious quality of life and no socialization). In Moscow, a  system of shelters was adopted with funding 20x the size of similar Russian cities, thousands of dogs packed 2 stories defecating on top of each other in some instances. Concentration camp-like situation but not CNVR and no euthanasia. Plenty of suffering and death because of inadequate care though.

Although the current ICAM recommendations warn of several features of CNVR, they do not disclose or list them in full, and do not say anything about examples of failures of this method. The OIE guidelines have a more substantial caveat about the limitations of TCO if pet dogs are to be treated responsibly (“TCO as a possible bad example of treatment”), but this caveat is too short and vague.

In general, it must be recognized that from the point of view of animal welfare and the safety of people inextricably linked to it, CNVR is neither the only method, nor even possible to use in some cases. While citing as unacceptable and deservedly stigmatizing such approaches as culling or life-long placement in shelters, the ICAM recommendations do not explicitly state that they may arise also as  a direct consequence of the political decision to introduce CNVR and the complete ban on euthanasia. While the correct, honest positioning of euthanasia among acceptable methods, as well as the same correct and honest positioning of irretrievable capture (not as a kind of culling, but trapping in shelters and the subsequent individual decision on the fate of the animal) could prevent many tragedies and dead ends. It must be frankly admitted that in some cases CNVR can be just as inhumane and ineffective as the above approaches.

But so far, this is not in the recommendations, in particular:

- there is no mention of mathematical modeling, although most mathematical models indicate that regular capture without return is more effective than  CNVR (with an equal share of animals caught for each of the methods). There is no honest admission that under CNVR, stray dogs will remain a presence on the streets forever.

- in addition to describing different types of stray dogs, there is no link to specific geographical differences between specific countries. There is no differentiation between the most common styles of keeping dogs: European and Asian. There are no smaller but important details: for example, in Russia and Ukraine there are practically no classic community dogs typical of the residential areas of Asian and African countries, but there is an extensive group of conditionally controlled dogs of enterprises and organizations that live in enclosed industrial areas. Moreover, the types of urban environment themselves in these countries can differ greatly from those in countries where CNVR is traditionally used (India, Turkey).

- examples of unsuccessful applications of CNVR are not given. And among the successful ones, those that do not fully correspond to reality (more on this below) are mentioned. is a lack of critical thinking approach to information sources, which, as a rule, are the local executors of the CNVR themselves. For example, the case of Odessa (Ukraine), according to ICAM, indicates a decrease in the number of stray dogs from 50,000 or 80,000 (!) individuals to 3,000-4,000 after the application of CNVR. In reality, scientific counts of the number of dogs in Odessa were not carried out at the beginning of the CNVR campaign, the value is purely speculative, it looks absolutely unreliable in comparison with cities of a similar size, in the same conditions, but where the counts were carried out (for example, Moscow, Kharkov, Nizhny Novgorod, Rostov-on-Don, etc., in all of them, there was about 1 stray dog per 200-300 inhabitants, even in the worst years, and in Odessa this figure is for some reason much higher!). In the experience of Odessa, the fate of the puppies was not accounted for or noted, which, during CNVR (captured mother), either remain on the street or disappear without a trace in an ‘unknown direction’. Also not mentioned are numerous cases of dog poisoning in the city that occurred until very recently.

- no examples are given of the successes of cities that did not conduct CNVR but used the Western approach (placing in a shelter and an individual decision of fate without returning to the streets with the admission of euthanasia according to indications and when the shelter is getting too full – TAKING ACCOUNT OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES). For example, Kharkiv, which has the smallest number of stray dogs among the major cities of Ukraine, and the complete absence of dog hunters. (Data and links on Kharkiv are included further in the article). Moreover, in the city there have been numerous counts of dog population with the participation of international organizations, and the reporting of the shelter is transparent and unequivocally allows one to judge the fate of the dogs (without hidden killings being conveniently being left out , like is often the case with any  analysis of CNVR).

- the interspecies relations of dogs and other animals are not considered at all. Meanwhile, stray dogs, especially in the northern regions, having a noticeable admixture of hunting breeds, begin to hunt other animals, in particular, cats. This hunting has no ecological justification, as the dogs do not eat their prey, but hunt for fun. It happens that attempts to conduct simultaneous CNVR for dogs and cats in the same city lead to the quick death of all cats from dog attacks, which means deep disappointment and despair among cat lovers, a waste of resources and hatred for dogs.

- the mentality of the inhabitants of countries such as Russia or Ukraine is opposed to the fact that homeless life is normal for animals, many remember the times of the USSR, when stray dogs were practically not seen. In addition, social advertising of animal rights activists involuntarily also pushes to the idea of unacceptability of homelessness (“take animals from shelters”, “don’t leave them in dachas”, etc.). But the reality of CNVR cities contrasts with these notions, demonstrating this or that horror of animal homelessness every day. Therefore, a significant part of animal rights activists or simply animal lovers are trying to “rescue” animals from the streets, filling their apartments or shelters with them. The city authorities, also quickly disillusioned with CNVR, are also seeking to leave more and more captured dogs in shelters. But there are not enough resources. It is Moscow that has the ability to spend 2 billion roubles per year for "mega-shelters", other cities and countryside – no, the budget there is 20-40 x less for a proportionally same size city as Moscow.. This leads to terrible overcrowding conditions, turning shelters into “concentration camps” (just one example is the municipal shelter in Ryazan, in which puppies and adult dogs sat together in cramped enclosures, unsterilized dogs bred right between the enclosures in the shelter, there was a huge mortality rate of young animals)

-significant already limited resources, both municipal and charitable, are spent on useless CNVR, and not on shelters, animal rehoming, preferential targeted programs for neutering of domestic dogs, and improving the culture of keeping.

 - owners of dogs are misled, their pets are placed in unequal conditions with the homeless (the need to remove excrement after owned dogs, while homeless dogs defecate where they want). The actual encouragement of homelessness provokes the self-walking of owned dogs, without owner.

It seems that the list of positive examples should also include such cases as Kharkiv or Petrozavodsk. There is no CNVR, or it is applied only to closed industrial territories (a feature of the cities of Russia and Ukraine). There is a HUMANE UNRETURNABLE capture, planned, based on monitoring. There are shelters and decisions of individual fate. There is CONTROLLED euthanasia. There is preferential sterilization of domestic dogs. Public education. And there is a registered decrease in the numbers of euthanasia and stray dogs in general. (Links in attachment)

Let’s look at how it got to look like this  in Russia and several other Eastern countries:  because a volunteer / person at home can provide 5 freedoms for his/ her 30 rescuecats, he/she assume the government can do it too, and basic level of animal welfare movement development DOES mean that these voices get heard and considered by low quality government). The easy carrot to give to soothe these people then is a ban on euthanasia (that’s what they want - no killing!) and shove the CNVR/ shelter issue on local municipalities (without adequate funding) or private sector (which is undeveloped and does not have funding besides some lucky cities ,never countries,  who managed to secure a large private grant.

So this volunteer , who has experience at home housing 20 cats and 10 dogs relatively successfully in her eyes, is now pushing legislation . She loves all of them dearly and cannot phantom the concept of humane euthanasia . She finds of course online material from ICAM, HSI and others , showing her it CAN be done, without any euthanasia, because there is this miracle thing called CNVR - ’Look government , if you do xyz , like it says in their guide , the problem would be solved. And if you don’t do it (or if you do and it doesn't work)- it's your fault- you are corrupt , cruel and lazy.’ And that is how we end up with policies that are quick appeasement policies of these scandalous screaming activists with unrealistic expectations waving around ‘research’ , as opposed to policies that prevent animal suffering in the form of  increasing stray dog population after / during CNVR and euthanasia ban and all the issues flowing out of that.

There is a city, though, that saw through the falseness of CNVR for dogs, and was the only city to implement a western style open admission shelter - Kharkiv in Ukraine. This was done in 2010 after 2 years of dog CNVR in the city that led to numerous problems. With the new comprehensive open admission shelter approach , they have achieved the best results in the country, that are quite well documented . According to the well known Animal-id.net count in 2020, which carries out counts of stray dogs in cities of Ukraine: counting in Kyiv - 82 dogs per 100 thousand population, in Nikolaev - 928.4 dogs per 100 thousand population, in Odessa -179.8 dogs per 100 thousand population, in Dnipro - 235 dogs per 100 thousand population, in Kharkiv - 43 dogs per 100 thousand population. Frm 2013 to 2020 the amount of requests from the population to remove a dog from the street dropped by 70 percent.

The amount of caught dogs in Kharkiv :

The amount of attacks on humans :

 Despite the good results, significant reduction in the amount of dogs that needed to be euthanized and excellent conditions for those remaining in the shelter - the Kharkiv municipal shelter received significant  slander and attacks from other animal activists , who have not been educated otherwise as to what actual dog population management and sustainable reduction looks like.

Here is in English  "Municipal Animal Service. Choice of strategy." where one can see the integral approach and reasoning.

Due to the lobby of animal rights activists, starting from 11/08/2021 in Art. 17 and Art. 24 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Protection of Animals from Cruelty" the text was amended, according to which the euthanasia of homeless animals in order to reduce their number was PROHIBITED. And, accordingly, it became allowed to release stray dogs to the place of capture after sterilization and clipping, as it is written in the law - "for free living". Since euthanasia was banned , the shelter in Kharkiv started to get overful with unsocialised wild dogs that have 0 chance of being rehomed, just sitting in cages and more animals started to be seen on the streets (even before the war).

Here are more presentations , data and scientific papers from Ukraine showing the honest practical side of what works:

Here is a report at the scientific-practical conference "Homeless animals - a veterinary, medical and social problem in Ukraine. Solution methods”, 2017-

Report to the III International Scientific and Practical Conference "COMPANY ANIMALS IN MODERN SOCIETY: PROBLEMS OF CONTENT AND HANDLING", 2013

"Stray dogs and the ecological situation: the choice of the optimal method for regulating the number of homeless animals" Matsevich L.L.

Report to the II International scientific-practical conference “Problem of homeless animals in Ukraine. Practical methods and recommendations for its solution”, 2012. This report describes how the application of an integrated approach to solving the problem of strays is organized in Kharkov. In this report, it is the presentation that is important - "Castration of stray dogs from the point of view of risk management in an urban environment", Matsevich L.L., is an analysis of scientific works on the effect of castration/neutering on the behavior of bitches and males.

Recommendations for Western NGOs active in stray dog population management 

•   Realization that the current communication and guidance approach of unexamined and non objective recommendation of CNVR that is possible - hasn’t been working and is doing more harm than good.

• Group statement, publications on euthanasia having been an integral party of policy in the West to reduce population and realistic assessment of CNVR issues that can be taken from this article.  By several charities or 1 ICAM, so not one charity is signaled out by potential trolls.

• Advocate the only proven working method over time in Europe to reduce the large stray dog population -  comprehensive approach with unlimited admission shelter , like was done in Kharkiv Ukraine till the law started mandating CNVR everywhere in the country and banned euthanasia. 

•  Bring back articles on the importance and humaneness of euthanasia if 5 welfare needs can’t be provided as a system (and spread them in a popular way across emerging market countries). Highlight the minimum (monetary) funds and staffing necessary to provide 5 welfare needs for a large number of animals in a shelter . A paper on what RESOURCES (monetary, people, system) are required to provide them for X amount of dogs to consider Y policy. So there are no illusions.  

• Don’t fund those who are against euthanasia of surplus animals and keep dragging even sick animals which have low quality of life and chance of rehoming. Make a statement that you don’t fund so they can see what is considered effective animal welfare in places of limited resources.

•   Fund those who have a realistic approach and create grants for those that do - specifically ask for realistic approaches in funding guidelines. Make it visible, publicize

• Be more open about admitting CNVR failures publicly, so others don’t repeat them, instead of presenting the project in the best light, just because  many years and funding has gone into it. Charities can only learn from each other if failures are admitted openly. Failure is part of innovation and progress, putting it under the rug just works against it.

To conclude:

With great success and size comes responsibility.

Honesty and Truth often come with unpopular effects.

Deliberate vagueness can be preferred from a purely PR perspective, but  has negative consequences for the actual cause.

If you can't bear the unpopular effects – better  say nothing or just discuss your own experience objectively, without recommendations. 

Thank you for reading.

This article was created through collaboration of  animal welfare activists and scientists who have a wide spectrum of experience in the practice of dog population management across Eastern Europe.

Any considered feedback is welcome. If you have read the article and the potential objections in the post here, and would like to argue why we are wrong in certain things – please do let us know at winter5000@gmail.com . We are always open to constructive criticism from people who have done the work in this field and speak from wide experience. 

Links, Research and Analytical papers on the subject :

Effective or Humane? L.L. MATSEVICH 

Count of Neglected and Stray Animals (Dogs) in Moscow, 2006 A.O. Vereshchagin, A.D. Poyarkov, and others

Presentation at the scientific and practical conference "Stray animals - a veterinary, medical and social problem in Ukraine. Methods of solution", 2017   "Municipal Animal Service. Choice of strategy." Yulia Shapovalova

ILLUSTRATIVE MODELS OF STRATEGIES FOR REGULATING THE NUMBER OF STRAY DOGS. IRREVERSIBLE CAPTURE AND CNVR . V.A.Rybalko. 

V.A.Rybalko. WHERE DO HOMELESS ANIMALS COME FROM?

Analytical note on the new Russian law. V.A. Rybalko, Biologist, Shelter owner, Coordinator of Realistic Animal Welfare Movement.

Regulation of the number of stray animals in Kharkiv 2008-2022

Report on the effectiveness of the irrevocable trapping program  Kharkiv

Art. 17 and Art. 24 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Protection of Animals from Cruelty" the text of which was amended due to animal activists, according to which the euthanasia of homeless animals in order to reduce their number was prohibited.

Report at the scientific-practical conference "Homeless animals - a veterinary, medical and social problem in Ukraine. Solution methods”, 2017

"Stray dogs and the ecological situation: the choice of the optimal method for regulating the number of homeless animals" Matsevich L.L. 

"Castration of stray dogs from the point of view of risk management in an urban environment", Matsevich L.L., is an analysis of scientific works on the effect of castration/neutering on the behavior of bitches and males, presentation as part of this report on neutering programs in cities.

Report to the III International Scientific and Practical Conference "COMPANY ANIMALS IN MODERN SOCIETY: PROBLEMS OF CONTENT AND HANDLING", 2013

According to the organization Animal-id.net, which counts stray dogs in other cities of Ukraine: in Kiev – 82 dogs per 100 thousand population, in Nikolaev – 928.4 dogs per 100 thousand population, in Odessa -179.8 dogs per 100 thousand population, in Dnipro – 235 dogs per 100 thousand population, in Kharkiv – 43 dogs per 100 thousand population.

L.L. Matsevich. JUST LIKE THE INDIAN ALPHABET?

Samoilov B. Stray dogs exterminated rare animals A letter by the Moscow ecological commision on endangered species in the ‘Red Book’ descriving the damage caused by stray dogs.

Rybalko V.A. Interspecific relations of stray dogs

Ilyinsky E.A., Ilyinskaya S.O. Dogs as dominant predators in urban ecosystems

V.A. Rybalko, 2010. The problem of homeless animals. A series of articles:

Parts 1 and 2. Introduction and "Moscow Experience"

Part 3.1. The city as an ecosystem. Features

Part 3.2. Dogs and cats in cities are the main aspects of the habitat. Population and subpopulations. Ecological types

Part 3.3. A brief history of dogs and cats in the cities of Russia

Part 3.4. Some features of the behavior and social organization of stray dogs

Part 3.5. Interspecific relations. Dogs and rats. Dogs and cats

Part 5.1. Methods of population control. Irreversible withdrawal, its methods and effect on subpopulations

Part 5.2. About shelters

Part 5.3. The method of "trapping-sterilization-return", features and consequences of application

Part 6. Possible recommendations

Annex 1. The urban ecosystem and the status of some significant species of urban fauna

Annex 2. Sex ratio in subpopulations of stray dogs

Annex 3. Stray dogs: socio-ecological categories

Annex 4. World experience in solving problems of homeless animals