As for the current problem, which was an important one, the government wanted to relocate the Delhi dogs in eight weeks instead of implementing the ABC rules, which neither I nor any animal lover supports. However, the government has now decided that we should focus on the ABC rules, so today we will have a thorough discussion of this issue. Therefore, rather than relocating, which is not a compassionate way ABC rules should be the main focus.
The topic has significant roots in public health, legislation, animal welfare, and community management; it is particularly pertinent in India, where controlling the number of stray dogs is a social and legal concern. In order for this post to serve as both an advocacy piece and an instructional resource.
Table of Contents
Legal Framework Supporting ABC
- The foundation of animal welfare is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960.
- The 2001 and 2023 amendments to the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules require vaccination and sterilisation and forbid relocation or culling.
- Supreme Court decisions (such as those in the Nagar Nigam v. People for Animals cases) that uphold ABC and prohibit removal.
- ABC compliance is enforced by Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) circulars.
- According to judges, relocation infringes against dogs’ “right to life” under Article 21.
- Municipalities or individuals who violate guidelines may face legal repercussions.
Scientific and Public Health Reasons
Rabies Control
- India has the highest rate of rabies, but according to recent statistics, the disease is already under control in many countries thanks to adherence to the ABC rules by some countries.
- Relocating causes vaccination coverage to be disrupted, which permits the spread of rabies.
- Herd immunity and immunization are guaranteed by ABC (70% coverage lowers rabies transmission).
Ecological and Territorial Balance
- Removal creates gaps because dogs are territorial.
- The vacuum effect is the migration of newly unvaccinated canines into abandoned locations.
- Causes more conflicts, bites, and the spread of rabies.
Population Stabilization
- Breeding is unaffected by relocation, dogs continue to breed in new areas.
- ABC sterilization shortens breeding cycles, which causes a long-term drop.
Global Health Recommendations
OIE and WHO recommend vaccination and sterilization above culling or relocation.
Ethical and Welfare Considerations
- Relocation causes stress, trauma, and often death during transport.
- Communities develop social links with dogs; these ties are broken when they are taken away.
- Starvation, traffic accidents, or territorial disputes in new locations are all consequences of displacement.
- The Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare are upheld by ABC.
- Gandhian compassion is in line with a humane approach.
Practical Challenges of Relocation
- Logistics: It is not feasible to transport thousands of dogs across states or cities.
- Cost: Exorbitant expenses for management, kennels, and transportation.
- Inefficiency: Either new dogs move into the area or existing dogs return to their region.
- Resistance from the community: People frequently object to the “removal” of recognisable dogs.
- Relocation is frequently viewed as cruel and inhumane by the public.
Community and Social Benefits of ABC
- Creates populations of street dogs that are stable and healthy.
- Minimizes annoyances such chasing cars, mating bouts, and barking.
- Dogs that have been sterilised are less hostile and more placid.
- Dogs that have had vaccinations shield the population from rabies.
- Promotes public involvement: ABC drives are supported by volunteers, feeds, and non-governmental organizations.
- Fosters constructive interactions between people and animals in society.
Global Perspective
- Sri Lanka: Sterilization and vaccination have been successful in lowering rabies deaths.
- Thailand: Reduced the number of stray animals by implementing statewide sterilization efforts.
- Turkey: Effective community-based municipal sterilisation initiatives.
- Mexico: With quantifiable success, widespread spay-neuter programs took the place of culling.
- Everyone agrees that ABC is the sustainable route and that relocation and culling are ineffective.
Comparative Analysis: ABC vs. Relocation
| Factor | ABC Guidelines | Relocation |
|---|
| Legality | Supported by law & courts | Illegal under Indian law |
| Public Health | Controls rabies effectively | Disrupts vaccination, increases risk |
| Population Control | Leads to long-term decline | No effect on breeding |
| Cost | Cost-effective, one-time sterilization | Expensive, ongoing relocation needed |
| Animal Welfare | Humane, reduces suffering | Stressful, inhumane |
| Community Acceptance | Supported by citizens & NGOs | Faces protests, backlash |
| Sustainability | Long-term solution | Short-term, fails in practice |
Addressing Common Myths
Myth: Relocation makes streets dog-free.
Truth: The issue still exists even after new dogs move in.
Myth: ABC is excessively slow.
Truth: Chennai and Jaipur, two cities with robust ABC programs, shown quick effects.
Myth: Dogs that are relocated will adapt more easily in a new location.
Truth: In unfamiliar places, territorial instincts lead to tension, conflicts, and fatalities.
Myth: Rabies is decreased by killing or moving.
Reality: Vaccination, not the quantity of dogs, is the key to rabies control.
Recommendations and Way Forward
- Boost municipal funding and corporate social responsibility collaborations.
- Encourage citizen participation by supporting immunisation, adoption, and feeding campaigns.
- Public-private collaborations to support long-term, citywide ABC initiatives.
Conclusion
- Relocation is illegal, impractical, and against the law.
- The only scientifically proven, humanitarian, and legally acceptable answer is ABC.
- enhances animal welfare, lowers rabies, and guarantees public safety.
- Long-term advantages include a more compassionate society, safer cities, and healthier communities.
- Adopting ABC is about fostering a harmonious cohabitation between people and animals, not simply about dogs.
