PREPONDERANCES OF DOG OWNERS TO NEUTERING OF COMPANION ANIMALS: A SURVEY OF DOG OWNERS IN MAIDUGURI METROPOLIS, BORNO STATE, NIGERIA
Abstract
Neutering of companion animals has always been a subject of debate between the owner and the veterinarian, who perform the art. The decision to neuter any pet animal is partly influenced by the owner’s preponderance to neutering. In a bead to assess the preponderances of dog owners in Maiduguri towards neutering their dogs, an investigative survey was carried out on 220 dog owners having unneutered dogs, using a closed–ended questionnaire structured by the investigators. The questionnaire sought the demographic characteristics of the dog owners, their general attitudes towards neutering of companion animals, as well as, their preponderances to management and neutering of their own dogs. The questionnaire was administered to respondent dog owners via the assistances of State Veterinary Hospital and University of Maiduguri Veterinary Teaching Hospital staffs, both in Maiduguri. Data generated from the information collected were analyzed. The results showed that majority of the respondents (70%) indicated single dog ownership, and 67.7% of the dogs were local breeds, while majority were male dogs (79.4%). Management practices such as vaccination, deworming, medical checkup, grooming, dog exercise, and training were observed routinely by only few of the respondent dog owners. Neutering of female dogs rather than male dogs, was generally supported by most dog owners in this study (M = 3.56). Majority of respondents believed that neutering of male companion animal de-males it (M = 4.33). It was deduced from the study that dog owners highly regarded their dogs in human terms, and might not want to neuter them. Our finding also revealed that dog owners had high preponderance that neutering of their dogs frustrates their sexual needs and that their dogs should have their rights to breed. Dog owners therefore, need to be educated on the cons and dons of neutering, so as to have a perfect management of dog population.
Downloads
References
2. Berck, A.M., and ketcher, A.H. (1996). Between pets and people, the importance of animal’s companionship. Purdue university press, lafayett – India p 316.
3. Blackshaw, J.K., and Day, C. I(1994). Attitudes of dog owners to neutering pets: demographic data and effects of owner attitudes. Autralian Veterinary Journal, 7: 113 – 116.
4. Bordner, G.B. (2004). Dogs http://www.en Encarta.ofg. retrieved 27th, April, 2007.
5. Bogel, K. (1990). Guideline for dog population management. Geneva – Switzerland, WHO/World Society for the protection of animals, p 9 – 102.
6. Brewer, D.J. (2002). Dogs in antiquity. The origin of the domestic dog. Bulletin British Museum. Zoology, 29: 119 – 199.
7. Coopinger, R. and Coopinger L. (2002). A new understanding of canine origin, behavior and evolution, Chicago university press, Chicago, p 22.
8. Fielding, W.J., and Mather, J. (2001). Some observations on dog ownership in the West Indies: a case study from the Bahamas. Anthrozoös, 14: 92 – 80.
9. Fielding, W.J., Samuels, D. and Mather, J. (2002). Attitudes and actions of West Indian dog owners towards neutering their animals: A gender issue? Anthrozoös, 15: 206 – 226.
10. Jacoby, J. and Mattel, M.S. (1971). Three-point likert scales are good enough. Journal of Marketing Research, 8: 495 – 501.
11. Kum, K. 92003). Dog meat tradition.http://www.enwikipedia.wiki/dog meat.
12. Manning, A.M. and Rowan, A.N. (1992). Companion animals demographics and sterilization status: Results from a survey in four Massachussets towns. Anthrozoös, 2: 45 – 52.
13. Odo, O.M. (1992). Guide to proposal writing in social and behavioural sciences. Enugu Snaap press ltd.
15. Osuala, E.C. (1993). Introduction to research methodology. Onitsha, African FCP Publishers.
16. Ralston, P. (2000). The state of the American pet. A study among pet owners. http://www.purina.com
17. Roxana, I.C., and Rusu, A.S. (2010). Attitudes of Romanian pet caretakers towards sterilization of their animals: Gender conflict over male, but not female companion animals. Anthrozoös, 23: 185 – 191.
18. Serpell, J.A. (2003). Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection: Beyond the “cute response” Society and Animals, 11: 83 – 100.
19. Vila, C., Peter, S., Jesuse, M., Isabel, R., Amorm, J.R., Rodney, L., Hong, C., Keith, A.C., Foalcin, I., and Wayne, R. (2006). A multiple and ancient origin of the domestic dog. Science, 376: 1687 –1689.
20. Young-Gem, Ann (1999). Dog meat food in Korea. Korean Journal of Food and Nutrition, 12: 397 – 408.
