نگرش روستاییان استان قزوین دربارۀ سگهای ولگرد (Canis familiaris) و روشهای مدیریت شرایط کنونی | ||
| فصلنامه علوم محیطی | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 22، شماره 3، 1403، صفحه 373-388 اصل مقاله (944.58 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/envs.2024.1351 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| احسان مقانکی* 1؛ نوید قلیخانی2؛ عطیه تک تهرانی2 | ||
| 1گروه علوم حفاظت و زیستبوم، دانشگاه مونتانا، میزولا، آمریکا | ||
| 2انجمن یوزپلنگ ایرانی، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| سابقه و هدف: چگونگی مدیریت جمعیت سگهای پرسهزن یا ولگرد (Canis familiaris) در محیط زندگی انسان و مناطق حفاظت شده گروههای مختلفی از جامعه را رودرروی یکدیگر قرار دادهاست. این تقابل نقشآفرینان در استان قزوین نیز وجود دارد و مردم و تصمیمسازان در تعامل با یکدیگر برای مدیریت سگهای ولگرد دچار چنددستگیاند. رابطه مردم با سگهای ولگرد تعیینکننده اثری است که این حیوانات اهلی بر ساکنان و گونههای بومی حیات وحش میگذارند. از اینرو، ارزیابی آگاهی و نگرش و نیز تعارض جامعه همزیست با سگهای ولگرد و ثبت درسهای آموخته در بازنگری روشهای مدیریتی راهگشاست. مواد و روشها: در این پژوهش به کمک یک پرسشنامه اکتشافی از منتخبی از دهیاران و بخشیاران و اعضای شوراهای اسلامی روستای استان قزوین که در یک کارگاه آموزشی - مشارکتی گرد آمده بودند خواسته شد تا در جایگاه یک گروه متمرکز (کانونی)، آگاهی و تجربه و راهکارهای آزموده یا پیشنهادی خود را درباره مدیریت سگهای ولگرد در محیط روستایی به اشتراک بگذارند. ترکیبی از روشهای کیفی با رویکرد استقرایی و مدل رگرسیون لجستیک برای تحلیل پاسخهای دریافتی در این نمونهبرداری غیرتصادفی استفاده شد. نتایج و بحث: از پاسخهای 115 نفر از گروه کانونی در تحلیل استفاده شد که 98 روستا در هر 6 شهرستان استان قزوین را نمایندگی میکردند. نمایندگان 6/79 درصد این روستاها (86 نفر از 78 روستا؛ 74 درصد پاسخدهندگان) سگهای ولگرد را یکی از مشکلات روستای خود برشمردند. نارضایتی از حضور سگهای ولگرد از روستاهای درون یا حاشیه چهار منطقه تحت حفاظت سازمان حفاظت محیط زیست در استان قزوین گزارش شد. نگرانی از آلودگی و انتقال بیماری (3/34 درصد) و ترس از آسیب جانی (1/11 درصد) مهمترین دلیل ابراز ناخرسندی پاسخدهندگان از حضور سگهای ولگرد در محیط روستایی بود. تنها یک نفر (کمتر از یک درصد) از پاسخدهندگان به اثر منفی سگ ولگرد بر حیات وحش اشاره داشت. با افزایش اندازه جمعیت روستا (میانه شیب 3/1، فاصله باور بیزی در سطح اطمینان 95 درصد: 2/0 تا 7/2)، وسعت سکونتگاه انسان در محدوده روستا (1/1، 1/0 تا 7/2) و فاصله روستا از مناطق حفاظتشده یا شکارممنوع (8/0، 2/0 تا 8/1)، احتمال ابراز نارضایتی نمایندگان روستایی از سگهای ولگرد افزایش یافت. بیش از نیمی از پاسخدهندگان چارهاندیشی با شرایط کنونی را بیفایده دانستند (4/30 درصد) یا ابراز داشتند که مشکل ویژهای وجود ندارد که به چارهاندیشی فوری نیاز باشد (2/25 درصد). تنها 1/26 درصد پاسخدهندگان از معدومکردن سگهای ولگرد بهعنوان روش مطلوب مدیریتی یاد کردند. در بین روشهای غیرمرگبار که پاسخدهندگان به آنها اشاره کردند، کاهش دسترسی سگهای ولگرد به پسماند و جلوگیری از غذادهی (9/13 درصد) و زندهگیری سگهای ولگرد و رهاسازی آنان در مکان جدید به دور از روستاها (4/10 درصد) پرطرفدارترین بودند. نتیجهگیری: رویکردی که شامل مدیریت پسماند، ساماندهی غذادهی به سگهای ولگرد و حذف مداوم بخشی از جمعیت محلی سگها با زندهگیری، واکسن، عقیمسازی و نگهداری در پناهگاه مناسب تا یافتن سرپرستی مسئول باشد، مورد توافق بیشتر نقشآفرینان است. با اینحال، فراهمآوردن منابع مالی و انسانی کافی برای مدیریت جمعیت رو به رشد سگهای ولگرد به شیوهای که اخلاقی و مورد پذیرش جامعه باشد و آثار منفی سگها بر حیات وحش را نیز به حداقل برساند، چالش بزرگی است که تنها با همراهی همه نقشآفرینان و ارزیابی منطقی نقاط ضعف و قوت هر راهکار به نتیجه میرسد. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| سگ ولگرد؛ گوشتخواران اهلی؛ تعارض؛ پیمایش آگاهان محلی؛ گروه کانونی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Public Attitudes Towards Free-Ranging Dogs (Canis familiaris) and Management Methods in Qazvin Province, Iran | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ehsan Moqanaki1؛ Navid Gholikhani2؛ Atie Taktehrani2 | ||
| 1Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, USA | ||
| 2Iranian Cheetah Society (ICS), Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction: There is much debate about the management of free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) in rural environments and protected areas of Iran. One example is Qazvin Province in north-central Iran, where there has been a steady increase in conflicts between different socioeconomic groups of the public about free-ranging dogs. The relationship between people and free-ranging dogs shapes the impact of these domestic carnivores on wildlife and the human environment. Therefore, understanding residents’ attitudes and interactions between humans and free-ranging dogs can provide insights into the extent of the conflict and propose alternative management interventions that are locally feasible. Material and Methods: In this study, we asked a focus group of 115 village council members from 98 villages across Qazvin Province to share their knowledge and experience of living with free-ranging dogs and management solutions. We used an exploratory questionnaire with two open-ended questions focusing on (1) whether there is free-ranging dog-human conflict in each village, (2) risks associated with living with free-ranging dogs in rural areas, and (3) appropriate intervention methods. We analysed the resulting data using a qualitative social science approach and fitted a generalized linear mixed model to quantify village-level determinants of complaints. Results and Discussion: In total, 74% of respondents (86 representatives from 78 villages) identified free-ranging dogs as a problem to residents’ safety and livelihood. Problems with free-ranging dogs were reported from human settlements inside four out of five protected areas in Qazvin Province. Transmission of diseases and parasites (34.3%) and fear of dog bites and attacks (11.1%) were the most common perceived risks associated with free-ranging dogs. Only one respondent felt the need to control free-ranging dogs to reduce their impact on wildlife. The probability of complaints by the respondents about free-ranging dogs increased with an increase in human population size (median and 95% Bayesian credible interval limits of slope βpopulation = 1.3, 0.2 – 2.7), the extent of human settlement areas (βsettlement = 1.1, 0.1 – 2.7), and distance from protected areas (βprotected = 0.8, 0.2 – 1.8) in their villages. Over 50% of the respondents stated that either there is no solution (30.4%) or there is no major conflict with free-ranging dogs that would require an alternative management strategy (25.2%). Only 26.1% of the respondents preferred lethal control measures. The rest of the respondents preferred non-lethal control measures, with reducing food available (13.9%) and trap-and-release to a new site (10.4%) as the most popular alternatives. Conclusion: Designing and implementing management interventions that are well-accepted by the public and minimize the negative impact of free-ranging dogs on Iranian wildlife is increasingly challenging. Education and awareness efforts can reduce the negative impacts of free-ranging dogs, but they cannot replace the need for active management interventions. The most effective methods to minimize the impact of free-ranging dogs that would be well-accepted by the public are improving waste management and constantly reducing the dog population size through removing individuals without owners from the population by non-lethal methods, including sterilization and transfer to dog shelters. Given the diverse community of stakeholders, participatory decision-making is required to manage free-ranging dog populations in rural areas of Iran. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| free-ranging dog, domestic carnivores, conflict, key informant survey, focus group | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abedi, M., Doosti-Irani, A., Jahanbakhsh, F. and Sahebkar, A., 2019. Epidemiology of animal bite in Iran during a 20-year period (1993–2013): a meta-analysis. Tropical Medicine and Health. 47, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0182-5 Amiraslani, F., 2023. You are not welcome! A media analysis of risk factors, prevalence and management of free-roaming dogs in Iran. Animals. 13(14), 2347. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142347 Anonymous, 2022. Stray dog crisis in Qazvin and threats to human safety. Available online at: www.irna.ir/news/84949905 Belsare, A. and Vanak, A.T., 2020. Modelling the challenges of managing free-ranging dog populations. Scientific Reports. 10(1), 18874. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75828-6 Bergström, A., Frantz, L., Schmidt, R., Ersmark, E., Lebrasseur, O., Girdland-Flink, L., Lin, A.T., Storå, J., Sjögren, K.G., Anthony, D. and Antipina, E., 2020. Origins and genetic legacy of prehistoric dogs. Science. 370(6516), 557-564. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9572 Bhalla, S.J., Kemmers, R., Vasques, A. and Vanak, A.T., 2021. ‘Stray appetites’: a socio-ecological analysis of free-ranging dogs living alongside human communities in Bangalore, India. Urban Ecosystems. 24(6), 1245-1258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-021-01097-4 Buchhorn, M., Lesiv, M., Tsendbazar, N.E., Herold, M., Bertels, L. and Smets, B., 2020. Copernicus global land cover layers—collection 2. Remote Sensing. 12(6), 1044. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12061044 Clutton-Brock, J., 2017. Origins of the dog: The archaeological evidence. In: Serpell, J. (Ed.), The Domestic dog: Its evolution, behavior and interactions with people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 7–21. Corfmat, J., Gibson, A.D., Mellanby, R.J., Watson, W., Appupillai, M., Yale, G., Gamble, L. and Mazeri, S., 2023. Community attitudes and perceptions towards free-roaming dogs in Goa, India. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 26(4), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2021.2014839 Craft, M.E., Vial, F., Miguel, E., Cleaveland, S., Ferdinands, A. and Packer, C., 2017. Interactions between domestic and wild carnivores around the greater Serengeti ecosystem. Animal Conservation. 20(2), 193-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12305 Darvishi, A., Mobarghaee, N., Yousefi, M., and Barghjelveh, S., 2021. Using the method of “Effective Mesh Size” for qualitative evaluation of regional protected areas (Case study: Qazvin Province). Journal of Environmental Studies. 46(4), 539-554 (In Persian with English abstract). https://dx.doi.org/10.22059/jes.2021.302112.1008010 de Valpine, P., Paciorek, C., Turek, D., Michaud, N., Anderson-Bergman, C., Obermeyer, F., Wehrhahn Cortes, C., Rodrìguez, A., Temple Lang, D. and Paganin, S., 2023. NIMBLE User Manual. R package manual version 1.0.1, <https://r-nimble.org>. Doherty, T.S., Dickman, C.R., Glen, A.S., Newsome, T.M., Nimmo, D.G., Ritchie, E.G., Vanak, A.T. and Wirsing, A.J., 2017. The global impacts of domestic dogs on threatened vertebrates. Biological Conservation. 210, 56-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.04.007 Donfrancesco, V., Ciucci, P., Salvatori, V., Benson, D., Andersen, L.W., Bassi, E., Blanco, J.C., Boitani, L., Caniglia, R., Canu, A. and Capitani, C., 2019. Unravelling the scientific debate on how to address wolf-dog hybridization in Europe. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 7, 175. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00175 Eklund, A., Flykt, A., Frank, J. and Johansson, M., 2020. Animal owners’ appraisal of large carnivore presence and use of interventions to prevent carnivore attacks on domestic animals in Sweden. European Journal of Wildlife Research. 66(2), 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-020-1369-0 Farhadinia, M.S., Moqanaki, E. and Ekrami, B., 2019. A manual on human-large carnivore conflict management in Iran. Fanoos-e Andisheh Publications, Qom, Iran (In Persian with English abstract). Galov, A., Fabbri, E., Caniglia, R., Arbanasić, H., Lapalombella, S., Florijančić, T., Bošković, I., Galaverni, M. and Randi, E., 2015. First evidence of hybridization between golden jackal (Canis aureus) and domestic dog (Canis familiaris) as revealed by genetic markers. Royal Society Open Science. 2(12), 150450. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150450 Gavgani, A., Mohite, H., Edrissian, G.H., Mohebali, M. and Davies, C.R., 2002. Domestic dog ownership in Iran is a risk factor for human infection with Leishmania infantum. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 67(5), 511-515. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2002.67.511 Gholami, A., Fayaz, A. and Farahtaj, F., 2014. Rabies in Iran: past, present and future. Journal of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2(1), 1-10. Gompper, M.E., 2014. The dog-human-wildlife interface: assessing the scope of the problem. In: Gompper, M.E., (Ed.), Free-ranging dogs and wildlife conservation. Oxford University Press, New York, USA, pp. 9-54. Hiby, E.F. and Hiby, L.R., 2017. Dog population management. In: Serpell, J., (Ed.), The Domestic dog: its evolution, behavior and interactions with people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 385-403. Home, C., Bhatnagar, Y.V. and Vanak, A.T., 2018. Canine Conundrum: domestic dogs as an invasive species and their impacts on wildlife in India. Animal Conservation. 21(4), 275-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12389 Home, C., Pal, R., Sharma, R.K., Suryawanshi, K.R., Bhatnagar, Y.V. and Vanak, A.T., 2017. Commensal in conflict: Livestock depredation patterns by free-ranging domestic dogs in the Upper Spiti Landscape, Himachal Pradesh, India. Ambio. 46, 655-666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0858-6 Hughes, J. and Macdonald, D.W., 2013. A review of the interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife. Biological Conservation. 157, 341-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.005 Hughes, J., MacDonald, D.W. and Boitani, L., 2017. Roaming free in the rural idyll: Dogs and their connections with wildlife. In: Serpell, J., (Ed.), The Domestic dog: its evolution, behavior and interactions with people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 369-384. Kéry, M., 2010. Introduction to WinBUGS for ecologists: Bayesian approach to regression, ANOVA, mixed models and related analyses. Academic Press, Burlington, USA. Khosravi, R., Rezaei, H.R. and Kaboli, M., 2013. Detecting hybridization between Iranian wild wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) and free-ranging domestic dog (Canis familiaris) by analysis of microsatellite markers. Zoological Science. 30(1), 27-34. https://doi.org/10.2108/zsj.30.27 Knobel, D.L., Butler, J.R., Lembo, T., Critchlow, R. and Gompper, M.E., 2014. Dogs, disease, and wildlife. In: Gompper, M.E., (Ed.), Free-ranging dogs and wildlife conservation. Oxford University Press, New York, USA, pp. 144–169. Lacerda, A.C., Tomas, W.M. and Marinho‐Filho, J., 2009. Domestic dogs as an edge effect in the Brasília National Park, Brazil: interactions with native mammals. Animal Conservation. 12(5), 477-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2016.05.001 Lambertucci, S.A., Zamora-Nasca, L.B., Sengupta, A., de la Reta, M. and Plaza, P.I., 2024. Evidence-based legislation, strong institutions and consensus needed to mitigate the negative impacts of free-ranging dogs. Ambio. 53(2), 299-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01928-y Mohammadi, A., Nayeri, D., Alambeigi, A. and Marchini, S., 2023. A wicked environmental challenge: collaboration network for free-ranging dog management in an urban environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 30(10), 27125-27136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24029-x Moqanaki, E., Behnoud, P., Moghaddas, P., Shams, A., Taktehrani, A., Gholikhani, N. and Khosravi, S., 2024. Examining human-carnivore interactions in Qazvin Province, Iran. Journal of Natural Environment. 77, doi: 10.22059/jne.2024.372814.2651 (In Persian with English abstract). Nayeri, D., Mohammadi, A., Qashqaei, A.T., Vanak, A.T. and Gompper, M.E., 2022. Free-ranging dogs as a potential threat to Iranian mammals. Oryx. 56(3), 383-389. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605321000090 Nekaris, B.K.A.I., Campbell, N., Coggins, T.G., Rode, E.J. and Nijman, V., 2013. Tickled to death: analysing public perceptions of ‘cute’ videos of threatened species (slow lorises–Nycticebus spp.) on Web 2.0 sites. PloS ONE. 8(7), e69215. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069215 Newing, H., Eagle, C.M., Puri, R. and Watson, C.W., 2011. Conducting research in conservation: social science methods and practice. Routledge, London, UK. Nyumba, T.O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C.J., and Mukherjee, N., 2018. The use of focus group discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 9(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860 R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Ranjbar, H., Haghdoost, A., Salsali, M., Khoshdel, A., Soleimani, M., Bahrami, N., 2012. Sampling in qualitative research: a guide for beginning. Journal of Army University of Medical Sciences of Iran. 10, 238-250 (In Persian with English abstract). Shamsaddini, S., Ahmadi Gohari, M., Kamyabi, H., Nasibi, S., Derakhshani, A., Mohammadi, M.A., Mousavi, S.M., Baneshi, M.R., Hiby, E. and Harandi, M.F., 2022. Dynamic modeling of female neutering interventions for free-roaming dog population management in an urban setting of southeastern Iran. Scientific Reports. 12(1), 4781. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08697-w Stanger, M.E., Slagle, K.M. and Bruskotter, J.T., 2022. Impact of location on predator control preference patterns. Frontiers in Conservation Science. 3, 844346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2022.844346 Vanak, A.T. and Gompper, M.E., 2009. Dogs Canis familiaris as carnivores: their role and function in intraguild competition. Mammal Review. 39(4), 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2009.00148.x Vanak, A.T., Dickman, C.R., Silva-Rodriguez, E.A., Butler, J.R. and Ritchie, E.G., 2014. Top-dogs and under-dogs: competition between dogs and sympatric carnivores. In: Gompper, M.E. (Ed.), Free-ranging dogs and wildlife conservation. Oxford University Press, New York, USA, pp.69-93. Villatoro, F.J., Naughton-Treves, L., Sepúlveda, M.A., Stowhas, P., Mardones, F.O. and Silva-Rodríguez, E.A., 2019. When free-ranging dogs threaten wildlife: public attitudes toward management strategies in southern Chile. Journal of Environmental Management. 229, 67-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.035 Zavaran-Hosseini, S. and Moqanaki, E.M., 2021. What we learned: conservation education, outreach, and participatory approaches for wildlife conservation in Iran. The Institute for Research on History of Children's Literature, Tehran (In Persian). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 8,016 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 3,745 |
||