The stray dog problem, ignored for years, is now becoming a serious test for local bodies, exposing their failure to fulfil even the basic responsibilities mandated by the Bombay High Court at Goa. Despite repeated warnings and directions, eight panchayats are reported to be dragging their feet on complying with a census order.
Stray dog management is treated by local bodies as a secondary responsibility rather than a statutory duty under the Animal Birth Control Rules. Recent High Court proceedings have brought this failure into sharp focus. When civic authorities need judicial reminders, summons and the threat of disciplinary action to perform routine administrative duties, the problem is clearly deeper than a shortage of resources. It points to a culture of complacency that puts both public safety and animal welfare at risk.
Ironically, in some areas like Margao, the dog census has come under scrutiny. Margao Municipal Council reported the city's stray dog population at 4,474 across its 25 wards. While this figure offers a starting point, the method used to arrive at it has been questioned because animal welfare organisations, certified census agencies or local feeders familiar with the animals and their feeding areas were not engaged.
Deploying municipal workers may be convenient, but there are risks. Stray dogs are not stationary. They move between locations, follow food sources, occupy familiar territories and are often more active at night. A daytime count conducted by personnel without specific experience in animal surveys is bound to miss a significant number of dogs, particularly those living in secluded spaces, market premises or areas with restricted access.
One particularly concerning example is the possible omission of the SGPDA wholesale fish market. Given the abundance of discarded food, the market is a natural gathering point for stray dogs. Dozens may be living around its premises, including the newly constructed platforms. Equally difficult to accept is the MMC survey's finding that only five dogs across the entire city were classified as aggressive, sick or injured. In a population exceeding 4,000, such a remarkably low figure raises questions about how thoroughly the survey was conducted.
An inaccurate census can undermine the entire planning process, from sterilisation schedules and vaccination drives to budgeting and infrastructure requirements. Achieving at least 70 per cent vaccination coverage is generally considered important for building population-level protection against rabies. Sterilisation programmes also need sufficiently broad coverage to make a difference to population growth. If the actual number of stray dogs is underestimated by even 15 to 20 per cent, the resulting targets will be inadequate. A flawed starting point risks making the entire exercise ineffective.
The State cannot afford to approach this issue through casual surveys. The High Court's firm position is an important step towards accountability, but lasting change will require serious participation, and local bodies must take ownership of the problem. Margao, in particular, needs a fresh and more credible assessment of its stray dog population. The objective is not to give a figure, but to establish a reliable baseline on which practical interventions can be built.
Ultimately, this is not a question of choosing between human safety and compassion for animals. Both matter, and both require responsible administration. Stray dog management is a public health obligation as much as it is an animal welfare responsibility. Until local authorities recognise its urgency and act, Goa's stray dog crisis will remain a reflection of a much larger failure.
