Supreme Court's Verdict on Strays: An Unworkable Cruel Mistake

The recent Supreme Court ruling on stray dogs in Delhi has sparked a significant debate, with a prominent negative view focusing on its practicality, legality, and potential consequences. Critics, including animal rights activists, NGOs, and former government officials, argue that the order is "unworkable," "impractical," and "scientifically illiterate."

One of the central arguments against the ruling is the sheer logistical and financial challenge it poses. With an estimated hundreds of thousands to over a million stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR region, the creation of a sufficient number of shelters within the mandated eight-week timeline is considered impossible. Experts, such as former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi, have pointed out the immense cost and infrastructure required, arguing that the funds and space simply do not exist. Overcrowded and poorly managed shelters could also become breeding grounds for diseases, leading to new public health crises.

Another major point of contention is that the ruling directly contradicts the existing Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. These rules, based on scientific evidence and endorsed by the World Health Organization, advocate for sterilizing and vaccinating stray dogs and then returning them to their original territories. This approach is proven to be effective in controlling the dog population and reducing rabies cases.

Critics argue that removing sterilized and vaccinated dogs could create a "vacuum effect," allowing new, un-vaccinated, and more aggressive dogs to move into the area, ultimately worsening the problem. They also contend that the ruling ignores the role of stray dogs in rodent control, which could lead to other ecological imbalances.

Potential solutions to the stray dog issue, as advocated by many animal welfare groups, focus on a multi-pronged, humane approach:

**Strengthening and enforcing the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023: This includes robust and widespread sterilization and vaccination programs to humanely control the population and eliminate rabies.

**Responsible pet ownership: This involves stricter laws and enforcement regarding pet registration, microchipping, and penalties for abandonment. Abandoned pets often contribute significantly to the stray population.

**Improved waste management: Better sanitation and waste disposal would reduce the availability of food sources for strays, naturally controlling their numbers.

**Community engagement and awareness: Educating the public on humane coexistence with street animals, promoting adoption of "indie" dogs, and involving local communities in feeding and caring for sterilized dogs can create a safer environment for both humans and animals.

Creation of a limited number of well-resourced, high-quality shelters: These could be used for sick, injured, or highly aggressive animals, not as a permanent solution for the entire stray population.

This discussion about stray dogs highlights a broader question about how society addresses various types of stray animals.

What about the cows roaming in India, causing accidents and attacks? Should they be banned too? Why are the rules different? The cows roaming the street is because there are no shelters? Are the authorities to control the population shirking their responsibilities?