Akhil R. Kshirsagar, Jennifer W. Applebaum, Zoavina Randriana, Tsiky Rajaonarivelo, Radoniaina R. Rafaliarison, Z. Farris, Kim Valenta
{"title":"Human-Dog Relationships across Communities Surrounding Ranomafana and Andasibe-Mantadia National Parks, Madagascar","authors":"Akhil R. Kshirsagar, Jennifer W. Applebaum, Zoavina Randriana, Tsiky Rajaonarivelo, Radoniaina R. Rafaliarison, Z. Farris, Kim Valenta","doi":"10.2993/0278-0771-40.4.483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are estimated to be one of the most globally abundant invasive carnivores that threaten wildlife. Madagascar is home to large populations of free-roaming dogs and is a highly diverse and anthropogenically threatened environment, making it one of the world's top conservation priorities. Comparatively little is known about human-dog relationships in developing countries such as Madagascar. We surveyed non-dog owners and dog owners visiting free mobile veterinary clinics in their communities around Ranomafana National Park (RNP) and Andasibe-Mantadia National Park (AMNP) to understand human-dog relationships, gain insight on free-roaming dog behavior, and to assess the feasibility of humane population control measures. Amongst dog owners, the vast majority of respondents reported owning their dog for protection and a significant number had dogs for companionship. Our results indicate that free-roaming (owned, unconfined) dogs may be an underappreciated threat to endemic wildlife in the National Parks of Madagascar, as nearly half of dog owners reported that their dog killed at least one wild animal a month. Most dog owners in surveyed communities approve of spay/neuter/vaccine programs and state that they would use them if freely available, indicating that veterinary intervention can be an important tool in humanely controlling free-roaming dog populations in these regions.","PeriodicalId":54838,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnobiology","volume":"40 1","pages":"483 - 498"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnobiology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-40.4.483","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
Abstract. Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are estimated to be one of the most globally abundant invasive carnivores that threaten wildlife. Madagascar is home to large populations of free-roaming dogs and is a highly diverse and anthropogenically threatened environment, making it one of the world's top conservation priorities. Comparatively little is known about human-dog relationships in developing countries such as Madagascar. We surveyed non-dog owners and dog owners visiting free mobile veterinary clinics in their communities around Ranomafana National Park (RNP) and Andasibe-Mantadia National Park (AMNP) to understand human-dog relationships, gain insight on free-roaming dog behavior, and to assess the feasibility of humane population control measures. Amongst dog owners, the vast majority of respondents reported owning their dog for protection and a significant number had dogs for companionship. Our results indicate that free-roaming (owned, unconfined) dogs may be an underappreciated threat to endemic wildlife in the National Parks of Madagascar, as nearly half of dog owners reported that their dog killed at least one wild animal a month. Most dog owners in surveyed communities approve of spay/neuter/vaccine programs and state that they would use them if freely available, indicating that veterinary intervention can be an important tool in humanely controlling free-roaming dog populations in these regions.
期刊介绍:
JoE’s readership is as wide and diverse as ethnobiology itself, with readers spanning from both the natural and social sciences. Not surprisingly, a glance at the papers published in the Journal reveals the depth and breadth of topics, extending from studies in archaeology and the origins of agriculture, to folk classification systems, to food composition, plants, birds, mammals, fungi and everything in between.
Research areas published in JoE include but are not limited to neo- and paleo-ethnobiology, zooarchaeology, ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnopharmacology, ethnoecology, linguistic ethnobiology, human paleoecology, and many other related fields of study within anthropology and biology, such as taxonomy, conservation biology, ethnography, political ecology, and cognitive and cultural anthropology.
JoE does not limit itself to a single perspective, approach or discipline, but seeks to represent the full spectrum and wide diversity of the field of ethnobiology, including cognitive, symbolic, linguistic, ecological, and economic aspects of human interactions with our living world. Articles that significantly advance ethnobiological theory and/or methodology are particularly welcome, as well as studies bridging across disciplines and knowledge systems. JoE does not publish uncontextualized data such as species lists; appropriate submissions must elaborate on the ethnobiological context of findings.