Author:
de Santi Carlos Eduardo,Chiba de Castro Wagner Antonio,Sibim Alessandra Cristiane,Lopes Renata Defante,Galvão Sandro Roberto,Kurtz Giselli Maria,Biondo Leandro Meneguelli,Kmetiuk Louise Bach,Biondo Alexander Welker
Abstract
IntroductionAlthough estimate models have been proposed to determine free-roaming (both stray and semi-domiciled) dog populations, to date, no study has focused on the three major border areas of Brazil. Therefore, the present study assessed the free-roaming dog population of Foz do Iguaçu, a major far-west Brazilian city located in a three-border area (Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay), which is considered among the top five Brazilian tourist destinations.MethodsCapture-release sampling was performed in three phases with a 6-month interval and 10-day duration of each phase, totaling 18 months, between 2018 and 2019.ResultsA total of 1,273 dogs were estimated in the first [95% confidence interval (CI), 468–2,078 dogs], 904 in the second (95%CI, 452–1,355 dogs), and 1,564 in the third (95%CI, 521–2,607 dogs) capture phases in this area, suggesting a population density of 18.4 dogs/km2 (6.1–30.6 dogs/km2, 95% CI). Of all free-roaming dogs, 452/1,125 (40.2%) were stray with no confirmed ownership or household, whereas 672/1,125 (59.8%) had a known origin, among which 625/1,125 (55.6%) were semi-domiciled with ownership or a household, 36/1,125 (3.2%) were neighborhood dogs with maintainers, and 11/1,125 (1.0%) were owned by recycling material collectors and homeless individuals. The majority of the 1,125 dogs (862/1,125; 76.6%) had an ideal body condition score. The high outdoor access of owned dogs is likely caused by cultural behavior. However, because 533/1,125 (47.4%) of the free-roaming dogs presented with clinical abnormalities, irresponsible ownership may have negatively impacted dog health and welfare.DiscussionThis study was the first to establish the density of free-roaming dogs, the ratio of stray and semi-domiciled dogs, and their dynamics over time in Foz do Iguaçu. The findings may serve as a warning for the high level of dog outdoor access and irresponsible guardianship, which may negatively affect animal health and welfare, leading to diseases, accidents, trauma, and animal cruelty.