I. Introduction: The Unfolding Crisis in God's Own Country

The issue of stray dogs in Kerala has become a deeply complex and contentious challenge, impacting public safety, animal welfare, and societal harmony. This is not merely a localized problem but a reflection of broader human–animal conflicts seen in rapidly urbanizing areas worldwide. Despite Kerala’s reputation for lush landscapes and progressive policies, the state now faces a significant and growing stray dog population, with recent estimates placing it at over 2.8 million. This high density of dogs across both urban and rural areas contributes to a multifaceted crisis demanding urgent and nuanced attention.

Historically, localized culling was the common method of control, but this was later replaced by a legal framework that promotes humane population control through sterilization and vaccination. However, this policy shift has intensified public debate. Public safety advocates—often those who have directly experienced dog attacks or rabies-related fatalities—demand more aggressive measures. Conversely, animal rights activists oppose culling and support humane methods, emphasizing the dogs' right to live with dignity. This ideological conflict has created significant barriers to effective policy implementation, underscoring the systemic failure to translate regulations into practical solutions.

II. Historical Trajectories: From Traditional Practices to Modern Policies

Stray Dog Management in Kerala Before the 21st Century

Before the introduction of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, stray dog management in Kerala primarily relied on localized culling. This practice, common across India, involved the direct killing of stray dogs to reduce their numbers and address perceived threats to public safety. Such interventions were usually reactive, triggered by specific incidents like dog bites or rabies outbreaks, and were seen as immediate, pragmatic solutions.

Local bodies had broad discretionary powers to conduct mass elimination campaigns, as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, was not stringently enforced. Public perception at the time largely favored direct intervention to ensure safety.

The Paradigm Shift with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules (2001, 2023)

A key turning point came with the introduction of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. These rules legally mandated a shift from culling to humane methods such as sterilization and vaccination.

The Capture–Neuter–Vaccinate–Release (CNVR) method became the core strategy. Dogs are captured, sterilized, vaccinated against rabies, and then released back into their territories. The idea is that sterilized and vaccinated dogs prevent unsterilized ones from taking over, gradually reducing populations while creating immunized communities.

The 2023 revisions further strengthened these practices, aligning them with global standards. However, implementation challenges undermined effectiveness. While humane in intent, the ban on culling led to rising stray dog populations due to poor planning, inadequate resources, and a regulatory vacuum.

Judicial Interventions and Their Influence on Policy

The legal landscape is shaped by repeated interventions from the Supreme Court of India and the Kerala High Court. For instance:

• M.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala (2015): The High Court gave detailed management directions, but the crisis persisted.
• Anupam Tripathi v. Union of India (2016): The Supreme Court formed a committee to address dog bite victim compensation.

More recently, the Kerala High Court deferred a government order allowing euthanasia of diseased or dangerous strays, emphasizing the balance between animal welfare and human safety.

These rulings often leave local bodies constrained, creating a tension between legal obligations and ground realities.

Changing Public Perception and the Rise of Animal Welfare Advocacy

The move from culling to ABC policies reflects changing perceptions of stray dogs. While many, particularly victims of attacks, view strays as a menace, animal welfare advocacy has grown significantly. Activists promote humane treatment and the right to life for strays, organizing campaigns and protests against culling—including global movements such as “Boycott Kerala Tourism.”

This ideological divide, amplified by sensationalized media reporting, has created deep social polarization. Families of rabies victims often clash with animal rights groups, making consensus-building difficult and further complicating policy execution.

III. Population Dynamics: Understanding the Scale of the Challenge

Current Estimates and Trends

Kerala’s stray dog population is estimated at over 2.8 million. Official surveys vary:

• 2012: ~2.99 lakh (299,000)
• 2019: ~2.9 lakh (20th Livestock Census)
• Current estimates: ~6 lakh to 2.8 million

Regardless of discrepancies, the trend clearly shows exponential growth across both urban and rural regions.

Survey Methodologies and Limitations

Surveys often rely on livestock census data, veterinary reports, or passive surveillance rather than robust scientific methods like mark–recapture. This leads to significant inaccuracies and weakens policy planning, as interventions lack precise population baselines.

Factors Driving Growth

Inadequate Waste Management – Open garbage dumps and food waste provide abundant resources for strays, fueling survival and reproduction.

• Pet Abandonment – Irresponsible owners abandon pets due to rising veterinary costs, relocation, or behavioral issues. This introduces unvaccinated, unsterilized dogs into the stray population.
• Uncontrolled Breeding – For populations to decline, at least 70% sterilization coverage is required. Kerala has failed to achieve this, resulting in uncontrolled reproduction.

IV. Public Health Imperatives: Rabies and Dog Bite Escalation

Dog Bite Trends

Kerala has seen an alarming rise in dog bite incidents:

Table 1

 Thiruvananthapuram, Thrissur, and Kollam, while Idukki reports the lowest risk.

Vaccination and PEP Challenges

In 2022, Kerala launched a mass vaccination campaign targeting 70% coverage for herd immunity.

Problems persist due to:

• Poor compliance with post-exposure regimens
• Delays in treatment
• Limited access to Rabies Immunoglobulin (RIG) in rural areas
• Vaccine cold-chain management issues

Despite vaccines being effective, systemic failures in healthcare delivery continue to cause fatalities.

Other Zoonotic Risks

Strays are carriers of additional pathogens:

• Leptospirosis (4%)
• Leishmaniasis (7%)
• Canine Distemper (33%)
• Dirofilariasis (24%)

These highlight the broader One Health implications of poor dog population control.

V. Socio-Psychological Impacts: Fear, Trauma, and Polarization

Stray dog attacks cause not only physical harm but also severe psychological trauma, especially in children and the elderly. Survivors often suffer from PTSD, anxiety, and cynophobia (fear of dogs).

The issue has also polarized communities:

• Public safety advocates demand aggressive control.
• Animal welfare activists resist culling and promote coexistence.

This tension frequently leads to vigilante culling, counter-protests, and legal battles, creating policy paralysis and deepening mistrust in institutions.

VI. Ecological and Environmental Implications

Stray dogs also disrupt ecosystems by preying on wildlife and spreading diseases within protected areas like Periyar Tiger Reserve and Silent Valley National Park. This “edge effect” undermines conservation efforts, making the crisis both an environmental and public health issue.

VII. Policy Responses and Implementation Hurdles

The Kerala government relies primarily on ABC programs (sterilization + vaccination) as its main strategy. Recent steps include mass vaccination drives in 2025, targeting both strays and pet dogs.

However, poor implementation, inadequate funding, and legal restrictions hinder results.

VIII. Community-Led Solutions and Stakeholder Roles

• Local Governments (LSGIs): Some panchayats (e.g., Vechoochira) have successfully initiated self-funded vaccination drives.
• NGOs: Provide critical support in sterilization, adoptions, and awareness campaigns.
• Kudumbashree: Once ran ~900 ABC centers, but legal rulings in 2021 shut them down, severely reducing sterilization capacity.

Community-based, decentralized models show promise but need regulatory flexibility.

IX. The Imperative of a "One Health" Approach

The stray dog problem is not merely an animal issue—it intersects human health, animal welfare, and environmental sustainability. The National Action Plan for Rabies Elimination (NAPRE) emphasizes this approach.

Siloed interventions will fail; intersectoral collaboration among health, animal husbandry, waste management, and environmental departments is essential.

X. Conclusion: A Call for Collaborative Action

Kerala’s stray dog crisis is a public health emergency, animal welfare challenge, and ecological threat rolled into one.

Key Actions Needed:

• Public Health Priority: Ensure widespread ARV + RIG access; strengthen post-exposure care.
• Waste Management: Overhaul garbage disposal to eliminate food sources.
• Responsible Pet Ownership: Enforce mandatory registration, microchipping, and penalties for abandonment.
• Empower Local Bodies: Allow flexible, community-driven ABC programs with adequate funding.
• Bridge Polarization: Create structured platforms for dialogue between public safety groups and animal rights activists.
• Adopt One Health: Integrate human, animal, and environmental health strategies.

Only through sustained, collaborative, and multi-sectoral action can Kerala balance compassion with safety, creating a future where humans and canines coexist without fear.

.    .    .