Voice of Stray Dogs, Data, Information, Analysis, Opinion ABC, ARV, Legal, Reports

VoSD Helplines:
+91.9880119900
+91.9980009950
+91.9008541414
Bangalore, Mon-Sun, 9am-6pm
Read VoSD Rescue SOP
Email: info@strays.in

CNVR in practice in India (Part I): How it ‘eased’ its way in India ‘through’ the sub par TANUVAS-AWBI research

Posted on | March 26, 2014 | 3 Comments

Its not everyday that you see a report ‘commissioned’ by a Govt body on a deeply invasive surgical procedure – that show’s that 60% of the population of study 1 has severe-to-adverse results and 38% of the population of study 2 simply goes missing! And then the study declares the surgical procedure a success. The one thing worse could be that a complex invasive surgical procedure is tested on only 24 individuals and would then be used on millions each year. And the only thing worse than that could be that the Govt agency decides to not actually mandate it but allows it to be quietly put in practice. That is the story of CNVR in India. Because dogs don’t talk. They don’t get nominated on boards meant for their welfare. But they can get you domestic & foreign funding.

If you see the large number of dogs found with their intestines hanging out and if you ask the NGO that did the surgery – you’ll get to know that it was CNVR. Maybe poorly performed surgery by ill-trained staff but its CNVR nevertheless. You can’t even challenge that its ill trained staff – there is NO Standard Operating Procedure written by AWBI and as such all the AWOs doing CNVR surgery are doing something ‘illegal’. But AWBI don’t give a damn as long as its officers, esp those that have a buy-in facilitated by agencies that advocate CNVR in India such as Humane Society International (HSI), choose to only ratchet up ABC numbers. There is great merit in being the father of ABC in India. The effect that it has on dogs in practice is not something that crosses the conscience.

CNVR Dog in India

CNVR in practice in India: This female dog was rescued by Darshan Desai and the team of volunteers on 25th July 2012. She did not make it. She was found with her guts spilling out of the mid-line cut where the stiches failed after ABC surgery using the CVNR method (against the explicit direction of the AWBI). She had and no chance of recovery as she was thrown back on the road the day of the surgery.

But if you do challenge the practice of CNVR and its implementation and indeed its very existence with an NGO and/or should you approach AWBI – you will learn that the only basis of its existence is ‘TANUVAS Report’. You will not get the report. You will not get data. You will get the term. Now since this something of a ‘public document’ it should be available publicly – right? Its not. Its not available on AWBI’s website and its not available on Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (TANUVAS) website and its not available anywhere else. Try on Google.

So we got a copy of it. This article is on the findings of what the report really contains. And here for the 1st time is a publicly available full copy of the TANUVAS report itself.

AWBI commissioned this a study that was released as a report by the Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University called “Evaluation of catch-neuter-vaccinate-release (CNVR) as a humane technique for birth control in dogs”. The report was prepared by a team led by Dr. D. Kathiresan with the of Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (TANUVAS). The study was conducted at 2 AWOs at 2 major cities of the country in Bangalore (Animal Help Foundation, Ahmedabad) and in Chennai (the Blue Cross of India, Chennai) between 05 Sept 2008 to 19 Jan 2009.

For its mandate, interestingly, the report says “Recommendations arising from this work are expected to offer great valuables (sic) in containing dog populace in the country. The outcome of  this work is expected to help the planners and administrators of the Ministry and the Animal Welfare Board of India in enhancing the output of the scheme on ‘Birth control and immunization of stray dogs’  funded by the Ministry through AWBI.”

CNVR Dog in India

CNVR in practice in India: Another female dog found its guts spilled out after CNVR surgery on 4 June 2012

As we see in this paper this report is full of holes, its recommendations in terms of data inconclusive but its subjective conclusions steadfast. And it is these that are cited repeatedly by the CNVR backers in argument after argument. There was another report that was analysed for its data and correlation – which matches this one in its understanding of any data, or lack thereof – which was the KIMS audit on ABC programs in Bangalore showed BBMP failure, not ABCs report. VoSD’s critique of the report can be seen here.

Restrictions and definitions in this paper

  1. The TANUVAS report details the findings of the anti-rabies effectiveness through CNVR in much more detail than the surgical procedure itself. This paper however restricts itself to the data and analysis of the CNVR surgical procedure.
  2. In the TANUVAS report and in this analysis
    • Castration (Neuter) via prescrotal procedure and Ovariohysterectomy through right flank method of neutering (Spaying) is called conventional Animal Birth Control or ABC.
    • Catch – Neuter – Vaccinate – Release through midventral ovariohysterectomy in female dogs and prescrotal castration in male dogs is called CNVR.
  3. This is not an assessment or a critique of the CNVR method itself. It is of the research that provides CNVR sanctity and gateway in practice in India.
  4. Though the report was published by TANUVAS it was commissioned by AWBI and is referred to as the TANUVAS report or the TANUVAS-AWBI report interchangeably

Why did AWBI commission this report and what was TANUVASs scope of the study?

The report repeatedly mentions the reason for its commission: Read more

Sneha Maiya alleges VoSD killed or displaced VoSD Rescues No 1659 & No. 1707: Easily disproved on the strength of VoSD Rescue protocols and because we went back & found the dog!

Posted on | March 24, 2014 | No Comments

Of the 230+ articles published  by this publication this is the 1st being written and published in 1st person. At it is in response to a motivated attack by a person, possibly persons, alleging that I and VoSD have either killed or displaced dogs we rescued – without a shred of evidence or the capacity to assimilate the information and evidence to the contrary. And actually engaged senior ’professionals’ in ‘animal welfare’ to approach VoSD on the basis of this allegations – with them not once approaching us for an explanation either.

- Rakesh Shukla, Founder of The Voice of Stray Dogs. 

On March 17 a certain Sneha Maiya repeatedly called up 4 members of VoSD staff, and accused them of displacing dogs. She did so in-spite of being repeatedly told by each of them, that the dogs she was mentioning had been dropped back to the very same location that they were picked up from, after VoSD had tried to reach her, but she was not available to received them. Her response was consistently of shrieking and hurling abuse – without any reason being supplied as to why she thinks the dogs have been “displaced”, since she was not on location when they were dropped back, and had not even attempted to see them being dropped back, or requested anybody else known to her, to receive them.

VoSD Rescue No 1659.25.02.14 fully recovered and released on location on  March 19, 2014

VoSD Rescue No 1659.25.02.14 fully recovered and released, found sleeping on location on March 19, 2014

This issue was handled by the VoSD staff – to the point that each of them had to disconnect the call with her curtly, on account of the abusive nature of the call.

Later at night I started receiving a series of mails emphasizing the same, and alleging that the dogs had been displaced, as above. I did respond saying that I will investigate and provide an answer the next morning; but to no avail. I cannot off hand answer, especially late at night, regarding every dog treated and returned back to location by VoSD. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the Head of any organisation can claim that he or she is possessed of all information, regarding every individual dog, at all times. I therefore suggested that Sneha Maiya wait until the next morning. Rather than do the same however, she persisted in engaging with me over e-mail, and alleging that the dogs had been displaced, and making very irresponsible allegations about my staff as well.

From certain events that have transpired after that, it is seeming very probable that what was occurring was either premeditated and motivated. Her consistent assertion without being possessed of the requisite facts, or even waiting until the morning of the 18th of March to obtain the (allegedy) required information about the two dogs, is looking very much like a motivated attempt to besmirch the reputation of VoSD as a rescue organization.

Sneha Maiya, who was not ‘on site’ at all, i.e. on the location to which the dogs were returned back, has, after her abusive calls to my staff all through the 17th of March, and her e-mail exchange with me, and without bothering to re-connect with us the next day, been writing to and talking to various people, and making allegations regarding “her dogs” having been displaced by VoSD. One such organisation that she wrote to was the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). She also wrote to a senior officer of the Humane Society International (HSI). Neither the AWBI, nor the HSI, have any jurisdiction at all, over VoSD. In any event, neither are possessed of all facts; and the unrebutted assertions made by any party can by no stretch of imagination constitute the “truth”.

A forwarded mail can easily be EDITED, as we all know. Sneha Maiya has created a mail exchange of her own and approached the said officers on the basis of this. Sneha Maiya has forwarded the alleged exchange of mails with me, to both, the AWBI, and the senior officer of the other organization. Interestingly at least one of them has continued to engage her without checking any facts with VoSD. This lends further credence to the belief that what has occurred, and continues to occur, is a concerted effort to bring VoSD into disrepute.

This perception that Ms Maiya’s allegations are motivated is further compounded by the fact that one of the dogs reported by her (1707) was reported as a ‘weak’ dog – but was actually a large healthy female. Her movements and eating habits were normal through her stay with us. Surprisingly, the person that Ms Maiya had asked to hand over the dog to us (since she herself was not available when we picked them up, or when we dropped them back), was clear that he did not want the dog back! He specifically said so to our staff, who told him clearly, that the dog would be dropped back. Why Sneha Maiya took his help, is a mystery.

What is also surprising is that Dr Chinny Krishna, Vice Chairperson of the AWBI (to whom Sneha Maiya had forwarded the mail exchange which contains some content that is not mine) – and which has been a reluctant handler of some animal exigencies in the past that’ve been reported on VoSD website as well – decided to make the same assertion about displacement of dogs without first checking with, and verifying from VoSD. It is also on record that in at least 2 previous instances, members / co-opted members of the AWBI, including the said person – have repeatedly demanded that VoSD remove some articles from the VoSD website, which were found inconvenient, for reasons best known to them. Read more

VoSD Store

The Voice of Stray Dogs

Annual National Technical Paper Contest (2014)

The Voice of Stray Dogs

Search VoSD CRM



VoSD Rescue quick STATS


Service available since: 2012-10-15
Days in Service: 556
1884

Blood bank Quick Stats

Service available since: 2014-01-02
Days in Service: 112
12

Report a Stray Dog in need

Caller details
Enquiry Type*
I'm reporting an injured dog**
I'm seeking legal help
I'm requesting for blood**
I want to adopt a dog**
**in Bangalore only
Strays details
Species
Gender  
Description of Injury*


* Immediate dispatch/critical/ 2hrs
** Priority dispatch/severe/ 4hrs
*** Non critical 6-12 hrs
# Advice on mail/phone/ no pick up

Location/Landmark *
I have read the VoSD Terms of Rescue.
Breed and blood details
Breed*
Age of the dog (Yrs)*
Weight of the dog (Kg's)*
Referring vet/hospital*
Condition the dog is suffering*
Urgency with which blood is required*
I have read the VoSD Blood Bank Terms of Rescue.
Breed and blood details
Breed*
Preferred age (Yrs)*
I have read the VOSD Adoption Terms of Rescue.
We need to know you're not a machine. Please enter the current calendar year e.g. 1999*


CONTRIBUTE TO VoSD in INR

Contribute Here
Personal Info:




Payment Amount:
Payment Type: All Contributions in Rs only
Online/NEFT transfer
Check/Draft
Credit Card (Not available at the moment)
Payment Info:
Account Name: The Voice of Stray Dogs
Bank Name: Corporation Bank
A/C No(RTGS/NEFT): 039800101026974
RTGS/NEFT/IFSC CODE: CORP0000398
Branch Code: 000398
Account Type: Savings
MICR CODE: 560017019
SWIFT CODE: CORPINBB398
ECS SB CODE: 039800101
All DD's/cheque to be made in favor of
'The Voice of Stray Dogs'
Bank Name: Corporation Bank
A/C No(RTGS/NEFT): 039800101026974
Mailing Address of VOSD:
The Voice Of Stray Dogs, # 4062, 19th Main Road, HAL 2nd Stage, Bangalore -560008, India. Phone: +91-80-40741410
We need to know you're not a machine. Please enter the current calendar year e.g. 1999*
Recent Donors
  • Prajna Dutt


    Rs. 200 Committed
  • Susan Peters


    Rs. 4000 Committed
  • suchitra shenoy


    Rs. 5000 Committed
  • Shauna Spratt


    Rs. 4000 Committed
  • Srikant P


    Rs. 500 Committed
  • Ramakrishnan K


    Rs. 10000 Committed
  • Melissa Machado


    Rs. 2500 Committed
  • Madhushree Dutta Bangalore


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • sasa sasas


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Aditi GUpta


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Aditi Gupta


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Aditi Gupta


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Aditi Gupta


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • S Shivaranjani Patnaik


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Smitha Suri


    Rs. 4000 Committed
  • Sanjib Chakraborty


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Neha Rawat


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Ponnusamy Sennimalai Gounder


    Rs. 300 Committed
  • Anusha Rao


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Jerry George


    Rs. 500 Committed
  • Blondie  Pachuau


    Rs. 500 Committed
  • Vishakha Ganjoo


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Gauri Dineshan


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Yamini Khanna


    Rs. 1000 Committed
  • Rakhi Rajpal


    Rs. 500 Committed
  • Hemanth Kumar


    Rs. 600 Committed
  • Shanthi Muralee


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Sonya Balasubramanyam


    Rs. 10000 Received
  • Monika Ashwin


    Rs. 3000 Received
  • Roshan Joseph


    Rs. 4000 Committed
  • Bharanidharan K


    Rs. 1000 Received
  • Abhisek Sanyal


    Rs. 4000 Received
  • Zynndyy Namazi


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Siddharth K


    Rs. 2000 Received
  • Aasheina Ladhani


    Rs. 4000 Received
  • sonia Kumaresan


    Rs. 500 Committed
  • L  Fernandes


    Rs. 2000 Received
  • Swarnalatha  K


    Rs. 2000 Received
  • Sneha Honnappa


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Ravi Choudhary


    Rs. 1000 Committed
  • Sonika Krishna G


    Rs. 1000 Committed
  • Rupanjali Dhua


    Rs. 4000 Received
  • Vidya Gomes


    Rs. 2000 Received
  • Asha Shenoy


    Rs. 1000 Received
  • Roopa Vijayabalan


    Rs. 6000 Received
  • Armaan Reet


    Rs. 1000 Received
  • Hari Balan


    Rs. 1000 Received
  • Geeta John


    Rs. 4000 Received
  • Soundarya VJ


    Rs. 2000 Committed
  • Bharath  Thangarajan


    Rs. 6000 Received
  • Manasa Rao


    Rs. 2000 Received
  • Katherine Lamberton


    Rs. 4000 Received
  • Michelle Stewart


    Rs. 2000 Received
  • Anasuya Biswas


    Rs. 1000 Received
  • kathyayani Shenoy


    Rs. 3000 Received
  • Anjali  Sharma


    Rs. 15000 Received
  • Nupur Pathak


    Rs. 2000 Received
  • Shubhashree  Pai


    Rs. 2000 Received
  • Alicia  Dsouza


    Rs. 4000 Committed
  • Nandini Ramanujam


    Rs. 2000 Received

Illegal Cow Slaughter prevalent across India (Part 1): The case of AP High Court closing illegal slaughter houses in Kakinada (AP)

Pictures from an illegal slaughter house at Pithapuram, East Godavari district, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh [caption id="attachment_3505" align="alignleft" ...

Police directive by Delhi Police & Bureau of Police Research and Development for the protection of street and pet dogs, and other animals

    For everybody that stands up for animals and Animal Rights, the following two Police Initiatives in February, 2014, have to be taken note of.      In a NUTSHELL :    The Special Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Delhi Police, has written to all Joint Commissioners of Police, Delhi, and Heads of all Districts, Delhi Police, directing them to ensure that all Officers ...

VoSD Owner Surrender: Surrendering your unwanted pet dog to VoSD (Applicable only for dog owners and their unwanted pet dogs at BANGALORE)

  Please read the complete page for limitations and responsibilities. This document refers to The VoSD Pet Owner Surrender Standard Operating Procedure, The VoSD Pet Owner Surrender Form & The VoSD Rescue Standard Operating Procedure Surrendering your pet dog MUST be your last option. VoSD provides this facility, only so that you do NOT abandon the dog. We are interested in the welfare and well-being of the dog. If you have exhausted all other avenues, you can surrender your dog to the ...

A revised AWBI circular, on pet dogs and street dogs, clarifying what is lawful and unlawful

A Revised Circular has been issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India on Pet Dogs and Street Dogs. It replaces an earlier Circular on this subject, dated 1st February, 2014, which stands withdrawn. The Revised Circular seeks to supplement what was earlier issued, and to add to it. It is stated to have been issued in response to “requests received, to lend clarity and provide answers to recurring vexed questions”, and sets out the correct position in law with respect to ...

Alleviating the suffering of Stray & Domesticated Animals in Urban India: The 1st Annual National Technical Paper Contest (2014) for Veterinary & Legal papers with a prize money Rs.1 Lakh

This is a technical / research paper competition and your entry needs to focus on a solution and not exemplify a problem. All submissions need to be in-depth, with substantial research and references, should demonstrate original thinking, and the approach formulated should have clarity and completeness. This is not an essay competition. Understanding of ABC, and The PCA and Rules enacted under The PCA for Legal papers, and ABC / vet science for Veterinary papers is a must. Focus should ...

Know your dogs’ rights: The Use of Elevators by Pet Dogs (II) – What you should do if your society bans the use of elevators by pets?

This is the SECOND PART of our 2 part series on the subject, ‘THE USE OF ELEVATORS BY PET DOGS’. The FIRST PART was devoted to what you must know about the ‘banning’ of, and other unlawful restrictions imposed upon the use of elevators by pets. You can read that article here  In this part, our focus is on what you should or could do, were your society or housing complex to ban or impose restrictions on the use of elevators by ...

Cows for the slaughter: In the land of the holy cow & that officially prohibits cow slaughter*

India is the land of the ‘Holy Cow’, and cow slaughter is strictly forbidden by law across India, except in the states of  West Bengal & Kerala. All other states have enacted prevention of cow slaughter statutes (*see legislation enacted by the States / Union Territories on cow slaughter).  In Uttar Pradesh, where the incident that we’re writing about occurred, there is The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, for instance. The unsavory paradox however is, that India is also well on its way ...

Know your dogs’ rights: Use of Elevators by pet dogs (Part I) – What you must know about ‘banning‘ this and other unlawful restrictions

NB: This article is being given in 2 parts. In Part I here we discuss the (il)legality of the restrictions imposed on pet owners vis-a-vis use of elevators by their pets.  The article, court judgments and experts clearly establish that housing societies cannot ban pets, or ban the use of elevators by pets, through notices put up for the purpose, or bye-laws framed or amended for the purpose, even with the consent of the general body of residents.  In Part II we will discuss how to deal with ...