ArticleAmbio2024
Evidence-based legislation, strong institutions and consensus needed to mitigate the negative impacts of free-ranging dogs.
Article in Ambio, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dogs bring many benefits to our society but, if not properly managed, they can be detrimental for humans, livestock and wildlife. We highlight the increasing problems associated with free-ranging dogs using examples from two regions of the world where this issue is pervasive, India and South America. In these regions, free-ranging dogs spread diseases, injure people, harm biodiversity, and negatively impact human livelihoods. We discuss why mitigating these deleterious effects can be extremely complicated because there are diverse challenges such as: (a) a lack of or inappropriate legislations concerning free-ranging dog management and human-dog interactions, (b) unregulated intentional and unintentional feeding of free-ranging dogs, (c) limitations of animal shelters, (d) non-responsible ownership, and (e) uncontrolled dog populations. As the management of animal species is usually shaped by differing interests, existing policies and regulations, views and social influence of stakeholders, power asymmetries between interested parties is yet another challenge in this regard. We need evidence-based legislations and strong institutions (e.g., public health and conservation institutions) that are capable of implementing governance principles and managing the complexities of this socio-ecological system by taking science-based decisions, and balancing power asymmetries to promote consensus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.