A Quick Glance at Door-to-Door Outreach Campaign
|
|
|
Door-to-Door Outreach Campaign and Smartphone-Assisted Dog Population Survey
On a summer day of 2016, 6 people, split into 3 groups, braved an afternoon rainstorm on the curly and nearly-empty roads of Shezidao(社子島). They used non-fluent Taiwanese to accost aged gardeners, chicken farm owners, factory workers, and even a drunk dude with his black puppy. These groups of people walked for 2-and-half an hour, seeking to learn more about the owned roaming dogs nearby, including their population, gender, and neuter status, as well as about the presence of feral dogs in the neighborhoods. Months later, the records made that day became the preliminary data of “Shezidao Sterilization Project Area (社子島絕育專案區)”, and this kind of field survey became the prototype of current door-to-door outreach campaign launched by FFA.
Why Door-to-Door Outreach Campaign?
There are 3 sources of stray dogs, including abandoned/missing dogs, owned roaming dogs, and feral dogs. In order to limit the number of abandoned/missing dogs, we need better implementation of government policies on pet owners’ duty of care. As for feral dogs, their population can be controlled through TNvR*, a method which has long been used by FFA. Owned roaming dogs are dogs that go around unrestrainedly but possibly with regular feeders, and they have posed strategic challenges when it comes to reducing stray dog population for many years. Owned roaming dogs may come and go as they wish, receiving food from different feeders at the same time. On the other hand, feeders of owned roaming dogs may consider themselves owners or just one-time caregivers. Whether we can say an owned roaming dog belongs to whom often goes case-by-case. This unclearness makes it divisive to enact management policies for owned roaming dogs, and thus hinder the progress of resolving overall stray dog problems.
*TNvR: The acronym of trap, neuter, (rabies) vaccination, and return (to original places)
In comparison with feral dogs, secure food sources and shelters make owned roaming dogs in good condition of reproduction. Besides, unlike feral dogs whose off-springs usually stay with mother dog groups, owned roaming dogs’ feeders may give away the pups to relatives, to animal shelters, or even discard them to other areas, where the puppies may grow up as stray dogs as well. With more areas affected by feeders’ behaviors but no effective management, we see owned roaming dogs and their puppies spreading quickly in rural areas and city outskirts. FFA firmly believes that different stray dog sources need their specific response plans. We can effectively reduce stray dog population in an area only when the neuter rate of female dogs there significantly rises up to 80%. We know owned roaming dogs are where the key lies.
In the first months of FFA, our staff just called for the public to report stray dogs’ locations and then set off to implement sterilization tasks. This longtime frontline operation model was workable for some feral dogs, but too passive and unsystematic in terms of collecting stray dog information. Since we have shifted our focus to raise the dog neuter rate of a whole administrative district, we are in urgent need of another model to gather more comprehensive information about stray dogs’ locations, not only those of feral dogs but also owned roaming dogs. It is an unavoidable task to conduct dog population survey proactively.
In hopes of developing a specific solution to owned roaming dogs and a standard procedure of dog population survey, we have kept seeking to designate sterilization project areas, and to recruit door-to-door outreach volunteers. After several trials, FFA has been conducting regular door-to-door outreach missions every other Sunday since February of 2017. With limited resources, we have kept modifying our approaches to enhance efficiency, replacing paperwork with smartphones and online free tools.
The following is an introduction of our current door-to-door outreach campaign, including the objective, important preparation works, the improvement process of our techniques, local customs and practices observed over the past year, our results, and the coordination with the authorities.
*TNvR: The acronym of trap, neuter, (rabies) vaccination, and return (to original places)
In comparison with feral dogs, secure food sources and shelters make owned roaming dogs in good condition of reproduction. Besides, unlike feral dogs whose off-springs usually stay with mother dog groups, owned roaming dogs’ feeders may give away the pups to relatives, to animal shelters, or even discard them to other areas, where the puppies may grow up as stray dogs as well. With more areas affected by feeders’ behaviors but no effective management, we see owned roaming dogs and their puppies spreading quickly in rural areas and city outskirts. FFA firmly believes that different stray dog sources need their specific response plans. We can effectively reduce stray dog population in an area only when the neuter rate of female dogs there significantly rises up to 80%. We know owned roaming dogs are where the key lies.
In the first months of FFA, our staff just called for the public to report stray dogs’ locations and then set off to implement sterilization tasks. This longtime frontline operation model was workable for some feral dogs, but too passive and unsystematic in terms of collecting stray dog information. Since we have shifted our focus to raise the dog neuter rate of a whole administrative district, we are in urgent need of another model to gather more comprehensive information about stray dogs’ locations, not only those of feral dogs but also owned roaming dogs. It is an unavoidable task to conduct dog population survey proactively.
In hopes of developing a specific solution to owned roaming dogs and a standard procedure of dog population survey, we have kept seeking to designate sterilization project areas, and to recruit door-to-door outreach volunteers. After several trials, FFA has been conducting regular door-to-door outreach missions every other Sunday since February of 2017. With limited resources, we have kept modifying our approaches to enhance efficiency, replacing paperwork with smartphones and online free tools.
The following is an introduction of our current door-to-door outreach campaign, including the objective, important preparation works, the improvement process of our techniques, local customs and practices observed over the past year, our results, and the coordination with the authorities.
Objectives: Our Concerns Are More Than Neutering Female Dogs.
The public awareness to animal welfare has been on the rise in recent years. Amid this ambiance, the Legislative Yuan have repeatedly revised Animal Protection Act (動物保護法), and the government also keeps drafting new plans and neutering subsidy programs. However, local animal welfare authorities have long been short-handed. All the legal and policy changes cannot be fully enforced due to lack of officers. For instance, since February 2015, feeders have been required to sterilize their pets according to Animal Protection Act. Yet 3 years later, we see no significant improvement regarding family dogs’ neuter rates.
FFA's door-to-door outreach campaign also requires lots of participants. During the trial stage, we have found that in comparison with other voluntary tasks like driving or dog catching, door-to-door outreach is a relatively easy task. One can easily join in as long as s/he has passion and willingness to strike up a conversation with strangers. This is also a good access for those who want to get first-hand information about stray dogs in Taiwan. On the other hand, door-to-door outreach allows FFA to meet key feeders which cannot be reached by internet campaigns, lectures, and promotion videos. FFA, therefore, recruits a large number of volunteers to go door-do-door, in hopes of promoting animal welfare more widely, and assisting short-handed government agencies to implement current animal protection strategies.
No doubt the main objective of door-to-door outreach is to search more thoroughly for unneutered female owned roaming dogs in a wider area, and to facilitate the arrangement of neuter procedure. Yet there are many other objectives.
FFA's door-to-door outreach campaign also requires lots of participants. During the trial stage, we have found that in comparison with other voluntary tasks like driving or dog catching, door-to-door outreach is a relatively easy task. One can easily join in as long as s/he has passion and willingness to strike up a conversation with strangers. This is also a good access for those who want to get first-hand information about stray dogs in Taiwan. On the other hand, door-to-door outreach allows FFA to meet key feeders which cannot be reached by internet campaigns, lectures, and promotion videos. FFA, therefore, recruits a large number of volunteers to go door-do-door, in hopes of promoting animal welfare more widely, and assisting short-handed government agencies to implement current animal protection strategies.
No doubt the main objective of door-to-door outreach is to search more thoroughly for unneutered female owned roaming dogs in a wider area, and to facilitate the arrangement of neuter procedure. Yet there are many other objectives.
Preparation Works of Door-to-Door Outreach: 1. Route Planning
FFA's door-to-door outreach campaign does not amount to visit every single house and road in Taipei-Keelung Metropolitan Area (i.e. Taipei City, New Taipei City, and Keelung City). Since the main objective is to find out owned roaming dogs, we put more emphasis on where owned roaming dogs frequently show up. The following are 6 key areas for our surveys.
*Urban areas and downtown: Not included in our outreach routes due to slim chance to see owned roaming dogs.
*The authorities of national parks are Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior (內政部營建署). In terms of stray animal management, the Agency’s policies are largely contradictory to those of local animal welfare authorities. Therefore, our sterilization projects do not cover national parks, except for private lands within the boundary of national parks.
Following the determination of key outreach areas, we design different field survey routes according to walking distances, house concentrations, and accessibility in our targeted administrative districts. Then we assign the routes to different volunteer groups. Notably, we have found that Google Maps satellite images can help us quickly determine the area categories and routes. By following the information shown on Google Maps, we can predict possible stray dog locations more easily.
*The authorities of national parks are Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior (內政部營建署). In terms of stray animal management, the Agency’s policies are largely contradictory to those of local animal welfare authorities. Therefore, our sterilization projects do not cover national parks, except for private lands within the boundary of national parks.
Following the determination of key outreach areas, we design different field survey routes according to walking distances, house concentrations, and accessibility in our targeted administrative districts. Then we assign the routes to different volunteer groups. Notably, we have found that Google Maps satellite images can help us quickly determine the area categories and routes. By following the information shown on Google Maps, we can predict possible stray dog locations more easily.
Preparation Works of Door-to-Door Outreach: No.2 Volunteer Recruitment
Efficiency is the key to make sterilization projects successful. According to our estimation, if we conduct 2 to 3 outreach missions each month with completing surveys of a certain administrative district in mind, we need at least 12 groups within that month. This means in each outreach mission, we need 12 senior volunteers as group leaders to head more than 12 newcomers on 12 assigned survey routes. We can never put too much emphasis on the importance of volunteer recruitment.
After newcomers has taken part in outreach missions several times, those interested in being group leaders may be offered technique training to help improve survey efficiency and to invite more new volunteers.
After newcomers has taken part in outreach missions several times, those interested in being group leaders may be offered technique training to help improve survey efficiency and to invite more new volunteers.
|
|
Technical and Tool Improvement: Smartphone is everything!
As mentioned above, efficiency is the key to make sterilization projects successful. Since door-to-door outreach is our main strategy to cope with owned roaming dogs, we have kept thinking innovative ways to enhance efficiency. Giving up much of paperwork, we have been moving toward full digitization to speed up data compilation and enhance the convenience.
Smartphones, used by almost everyone, can include all recording, reporting, and information-tracing tools like maps, record sheets, cameras, etc. They can connect nearly all parts of door-to-door outreach missions. Below are some examples of how we use smartphones to replace paperwork.
Smartphones, used by almost everyone, can include all recording, reporting, and information-tracing tools like maps, record sheets, cameras, etc. They can connect nearly all parts of door-to-door outreach missions. Below are some examples of how we use smartphones to replace paperwork.
|
In just a one-day outreach mission, there may be more than 200 new pieces of data. After the techniques of data storage and circulation being improved, the digitized data allow us to do statistical analysis more easily. For example, our analysis shows that in Keelung City, there have been 100 volunteers involved, and 1102 families with pet dogs plus 181 unneutered female dogs found. The total survey route distance equals to 653 km. As for in Sanxia District (三峽區) of New Taipei City, there have been 94 volunteers involved, and 964 families with pet dogs plus 193 unneutered female dogs found. The total survey route distance equals to 1144 km.
|
A paper map with hand-drawn routes. Location: Guishan(龜山), Xindian District (新店區), New Taipei City
|
A digital map of Xidi (溪底), Sanzhi District (三芝區), New Taipei City. From initial itinerary planning, actual route recording, GPS logs, photos, stray dog locations, to latest updates, all information are incorporated onto Google Maps.
|
Characteristics of each District and Outreach Campaign Results
From the first door-to-door outreach mission on Dec. 4, 2016 to the end of 2017, FFA have organized 23 missions, having covered 4 districts of Taipei City, 5 districts of New Taipei City, and all districts of Keelung City. The following descriptions show the characteristics and survey results of unneutered female dogs in each district.
Taipei City
(50 unneutered female dogs were found.)
(50 unneutered female dogs were found.)
Wenshan(文山) Nangang(南港) Shilin(士林) Beitou (北投) |
Most dogs encountered were tethered or kenneled. In some rural areas there were a few owned roaming dogs, but most of them had been neutered, possibly the outcomes of other teams’ sterilization projects. The female dog neuter rate was higher than in New Taipei City. However, there were still some unneutered feral dog groups in riverside parks, hillside areas in Wenshan, Sishou hills(四獸山), and Yanminshan(陽明山). Owned roaming dogs were found largely in Laoquan Borough(老泉里) of Wenshan, Academia Road(研究院路) and Jiouzhuang Road (舊庄路)in Nangang, Shezidao, and industrial areas of Beitou. |
Keelung City
(181 unneutered female dogs were found.)
(181 unneutered female dogs were found.)
Renai(仁愛) |
It is the downtown area of Keelung. Most dogs found during our missions had been neutered, managed and traced by volunteers. |
Xinyi (信義) |
There were many roaming dogs in areas bordering Ruifang(瑞芳區, a district of New Taipei City). Most dogs had been neutered. |
Zongzheng (中正) |
There is a fishery harbor nearby. Feral dogs in this district were many and hard to be caught. In Heping Island(和平島), aboriginal communities there gave little support, with owned roaming dogs and family dogs mostly unneutered. This district had the worst conditions in terms of roaming dogs’ population and neuter rate. More efforts should be put here. |
Chidu (七堵) |
This is the largest district in Keelung. Most roaming dogs here appeared in hillside areas with many residences. In mountain areas, there were not so many dogs along industrial roads. |
Zhongshan (中山) |
There were many roaming dogs in container yards. |
Anle (安樂) |
In industrial areas there were many dogs, almost all of which had been neutered. |
Nuannuan (暖暖) |
We were told by local aboriginal communities that there were stray dogs but no pups. Most roaming dogs had been neutered, possibly due to previous sterilization projects of other teams. |
New Taipei City
(Following the slashes are the numbers of unneutered female dogs found in that district.)
(Following the slashes are the numbers of unneutered female dogs found in that district.)
Xindian (新店)/ 183 |
It is a district with many residences and various area categories, including downtown, riverside, industrial, and mountain areas. In our missions, there were many feeders and dogs found in this district. In downtown area there were feral dogs which were hard to be caught. In areas near Wulai (烏來區), there were many roaming dogs and newly abandoned dogs. Feeders unwilling to neuter their dogs were many, and they could apply for neuter waivers more easily due to the proximity to government offices. Feeders should be frequently contacted and more reporting access should be built here. |
Shiding (石碇)/61 |
It is a remote mountainous district with few residence buildings, most of which are old houses or holiday homes with people showing up only on weekends. Some vets may offer outcall sterilization services in this district. In our missions, owned roaming dogs found here were mostly male, with only a few, neutered female dogs. Most newly abandoned dogs showed up on Beiyi Road (北宜路) but they might quickly move to other places. |
Wulai (烏來)/49 |
It is a district with many aboriginal tribes, and a large part of this district is covered by no-entry forest. There were quite a few owned roaming dogs and unneutered dogs fed by local aboriginals. During the outreach missions, feeders here were highly cooperative, but later on they might bring in more unneutered female dogs from tribes of other municipalities. As for hunters relatively common in this district, since hounds in an estrus state would be difficult to control, some hunters did not reject neutering offers for their hounds. Some, however, thought sterilization meaningless due to high mortality rate of hounds. |
Zhonghe (中和)/23 |
There were many owned roaming dogs gathering around factories, but only a few factory feeders showed unwillingness to cooperate in neutering their dogs. The dog catching agency received stray dog reports quite often, but stray dogs here, frequently scared by people, were hard to be caught. Dogs in mountain areas, especially along Yuantong Road (圓通路)and around Hongludi (烘爐地) where many feeders showed up, were poorly managed. Nearly all dogs were unneutered. |
Sanxia (三峽)/193 |
It is a sprawling district with the highest number of unneutered female dogs found in our outreach missions. Other than tourist destinations, there are many paddy fields, factories and hills with quite a few residences in this district. We could see efforts made in previous sterilization projects in some areas. A puppy mill was reported to the authorities after our outreach campaign. |
Our Coordination with the Public Sector
Local authorities’ willingness to coordinate is the prerequisite for us to launch a door-to-door outreach campaign in a district. A highly-efficient sterilization project cannot be possible without building cooperation model with the public sector. Ahead of launching door-to-door outreach in a district, we would ask local animal welfare authorities in advance to offer us official documents and demonstration materials of sterilization regulations. These materials may reduce people’s concerns and make them more cooperative. During the outreach missions, we may encounter feeders unwilling to neuter or even unlawfully breeding their dogs. If it is impossible to dissuade them, we may report the concerned feeders’ information and collected evidence, including the existences of unchecked, pregnant, breast-breeding dogs or puppies, to the authorities. These evidences may help the authorities to arrange on-site survey or issue official documents accordingly. That is, since we do not have public power, after we file reports, it is the authorities’ willingness to follow up that is the key to resolve many cases.
On coping with reported cases, Taipei City Animal Protection Office (台北市動物保護處) tends to try its best to persuade feeders to follow regulations. Yet before 2017, there was only one case officer, which greatly affected the progress of each case. In Keelung City, the Animal Protection and Health Inspection Office (動物保護防疫所) has more resolution and stands firmly in the face of unlawful feeders’ behaviors. Many cases have been resolved under the coordination of the public and the civic sectors. New Taipei City Animal Protection and Health Inspection Office (新北市動物保護防疫處), whose jurisdiction covers much wider area, has more difficulty in management. Amid high staff turnover rate and under pressure of being appealed, the Office is often forced to waive feeders’ obligations to neuter their dogs. In current regulations, the waiver is a provision applied only to unfit-to-be-neutered elderly or sick pets, but it has been improperly used by bad feeders to avoid their obligations. This kind of waiver has life-long effect, but it does not equal to breeding licenses. However, the Office has very limited ability to actively conduct its own follow-up survey. How feeders manage their pets or even breed their dogs after receiving the waiver is unknown to the public sector unless being reported again.
On coping with reported cases, Taipei City Animal Protection Office (台北市動物保護處) tends to try its best to persuade feeders to follow regulations. Yet before 2017, there was only one case officer, which greatly affected the progress of each case. In Keelung City, the Animal Protection and Health Inspection Office (動物保護防疫所) has more resolution and stands firmly in the face of unlawful feeders’ behaviors. Many cases have been resolved under the coordination of the public and the civic sectors. New Taipei City Animal Protection and Health Inspection Office (新北市動物保護防疫處), whose jurisdiction covers much wider area, has more difficulty in management. Amid high staff turnover rate and under pressure of being appealed, the Office is often forced to waive feeders’ obligations to neuter their dogs. In current regulations, the waiver is a provision applied only to unfit-to-be-neutered elderly or sick pets, but it has been improperly used by bad feeders to avoid their obligations. This kind of waiver has life-long effect, but it does not equal to breeding licenses. However, the Office has very limited ability to actively conduct its own follow-up survey. How feeders manage their pets or even breed their dogs after receiving the waiver is unknown to the public sector unless being reported again.
Conclusion: Make Our Door-to-Door Outreach Campaign an Replicable Model
|
In pursuit of rapid enhancement of neuter rate to control stray dog population, over the past 2 years, FFA has made an all-out effort to complete our sterilization projects in coordination with the local authorities in Taipei-Keelung Metropolitan Area. At the same time, FFA has also sought to build a standard process for door-to-door outreach. From preparation works, implementation to follow-up tasks, FFA hopes this procedure to become a public-civic partnership model for other local authorities or like-minded organizations. By using smartphones to connect all parts of the outreach campaign, we get rid of messy paperwork, making the door-to-door outreach model more replicable and lowering its threshold. This is FFA’s main goal. So far it has been known in Taoyuan City (桃園市), there are similar door-to-door outreach missions conducted by volunteers in cooperation with local authorities.
* The door-to-door outreach campaign in Taoyuan City basically mirrors FFA’s procedure. Yet their executive staff mainly consists of local animal welfare officers. Besides, they sterilize dogs of both genders, and focus more on microchip implant and registration. The progress is slower than expected. |
|
