Oral Presentation The International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ): 27th Annual Conference 2018

Evaluating anthropocentric versus caninocentric attitudes and approaches to stray dog management: the case of Topoloveni, Romania as a potential example of best practice. (#83)

Samantha Hurn 1
  1. University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom

Introduction: This paper arises from the ‘Tails from the Street’ project - a multi-sited study documenting the lives of stray and former stray dogs (where ‘stray’ is defined as a free-roaming dog, not under the control of a human). Conducted in April 2017, Phase 1 investigated the impacts of the 2013 Stray Dog Euthanasia Law (SDEL) in Romania. During the SDEL, tens of thousands of strays were either killed or placed in shelters. In response, numerous NGOs and individuals attempted to save as many dogs as possible. This paper focuses on (i) how dog rescuer/activists in Romania think about and practically implement the management of stray dogs; (ii) how their views and practices have been impacted by the SDEL and (iii) how different management practices impact on dog welfare from a canine perspective.

Methodology: The paper draws on data collected using a combination of methods including participant observation with dogs and humans. The primary focus is on data obtained from interviews conducted with twelve Romanian rescuer/activists (nine female, three male), two male officials in a town (Topoloveni) which actively protects a free-roaming dog population, and discussions with members of the research team (five female, five male). Data has been analysed as per the author’s guidelines for multi-species ethnography (Hurn 2017).

Main results: Individuals who identify as rescuer/activists experience contradictory responses to stray dogs. While they feel compelled to ‘save’ dogs by removing them from the streets, some also recognise that (i) the conditions in shelters around the country are not fit for purpose and as a result may compromise canine welfare; (ii) many former stray dogs do not adapt well to captivity; and (iii) in some situations (e.g. Topoloveni) free-roaming strays experience good quality of life, preferable in many instances to captivity.

Conclusions/implications: The anthropocentric tendencies of some rescuers to regard the perceived safety of captivity as a primary welfare consideration is not always commensurate with ensuring good welfare for stray and former stray dogs. This has implications for management programmes which prioritise the use of shelters and adoption programmes. In theoretical terms, the importance of considering welfare practices and legislation from the perspectives of the nonhuman species and individuals concerned comes to the fore.

  1. Hurn, S. 2017. ‘Multispecies ethnography’ Sage Research Methods Datasets. http://methods.sagepub.com/datasets [live December 2017]