3 ms·

Citation needed.

• troupo 3y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6940938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6940938/ Fertility control alone: 12% to 40% population decrease. More effective over longer time spans (up to 20 years) Culling alone: Effective in rapidly reducing population short-term, population replaced through compensatory breeding or migration from other locations https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/27935/1/Smith_LM_Biology_PhD_2020.pdf https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/27935/1/Smith_LM_Biology_PhD... Combined CNR and responsible ownership targeted several flows into and between the dog subpopulations: it prevented the street dog population from increasing through births and abandonment, and it increased the adoption of dogs from the shelter dog population to the owned dog population. This combined method had a synergistic effect: neither CNR nor responsible ownership applied in isolation was as effective at reducing street dog population size The key result of this thesis is that methods targeting multiple sources of population increase, such as combined CNR [capture-neuter-release] and responsible ownership campaigns, will be most effective at reducing free-roaming dog population size
  • goodpoint 3y ago
    You were claiming that this is not effective because people are buying dogs as pets and abandoning them. Do you understand this thread is about Bhutan? It's a pretty poor country (source below) where not that many people think of buying a dog and then abandoning it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...