Both dog lovers, and the rest of existence, frozen in constant moral conundrum upon realising the only sustainable solution to human-stray conflict is culling

Right now, somewhere near you: It's a dog lovers curse to deal with the breed of human that doesn't love dogs, as much, or any at all. It takes a sharp turn especially with their care for strays and the response it can spur. This is evident in the recent surge of online discussions on the rising number of stray dogs on Indian streets. Those raising well-known legitimate issues that arise from the habit of feeding stray dogs and leaving them on the street get an instant "you'll only be happy once you kill them" response and other such taunts. Let's take stock of this heated conversation thread that repeats itself into infinity.

In short, dog lovers jump to the immediate conclusion that people who don't have the same amount of natural devotion they feel for the animal species are effectively inhuman, by all standards. They take any counterview to mean that what all those who oppose them want is to see the street dogs dead.

What that does not take into account is that their (the others) very humanity is defined by the fact they don't kill the dogs at will, despite the urban nuisance they can be. They actually tolerate them to what extent they can, and whine sometimes but killing them is the line they have drawn really thick, going by the number of stray dogs that are alive (and growing).

At these allegations, the dog lovers, then, take their response up a notch with "What does a dog do except be loyal and desire as much affection as people deserve?" What's notable is that the others have been exhibiting exactly what they are accused to show the lack of! When they make their concerns known, reasonably, they are chided for not having a dog-centric upbringing like it's their fault.

Sometimes, the conversation gets lit with fire on a high flame. This is when they bring up specific incidences of how stray dogs have been a nuisance like when they or someone else are bitten, chased, had to get a rabies shot or cannot live, walk and breathe in peace in what is supposed to be an organized, peaceful urban locality.

Dog lovers say that development is encroachment on the dogs' original home, and humans excluding them is nothing less than animal cruelty. In other words, stray dogs deserve their home too in this urban mess and the street is perfectly good enough. That's why they feed them them out of compassion and leave them there - back on the street.

And the response: feeding and leaving them is a sincere but surfacial act of compassion. As an only response, it increases breeding and therefore increases numbers which therefore increases every other legitimate issue (and more) raised above that is slowly manifesting into a society-street dog conflict. There will be, clearly, too many dogs and too few people to care for them  - a future problem that the much fewer doing it now are creating. And smack comes the reply: all dogs are saints. It's the humans who have hit them and belted them with stones whom they now attack. On hearing that the humans wouldn't need to do that if they were threatened by them, "Threatened?", they laugh.

As it goes, dogs are saints - kind, perfect and loyal from the inside out. That's pretty much undisputable even by someone who grew up and lived most of their lives dog-negative. In a loving caring environment, everyone seeks love, gets it, knows fear-less and doesn't feel threatened. The street life is no equal substitute for anyone to do that - whether dog or human.

What is also raised is that street dogs, like humans too, die at some point (at least of old age) and give birth to new generations who do the same thing. But they spawn their own in a set up that is not built or fit for life with any dignity that they should be due: both street dogs and homeless/less privileged people. The fact that they feel threatened (and protect themselves) is not the fault the single/few human(s) who want have this conversation and can't even get started without being accused of wanting to randomly kill dogs as an aspiration.

They also say that the responsibility of that fault is so huge, you can't really pin it on one thing or person alone. That ship has sailed. It's now time to acknowledging a few things apart from the points mentioned above:

If we want to give street dogs the right to their home, the street is no place for them, or anyone/animal.
If we ride on present laws that offer not solace to dog or man like the Animals Birth Control Act (that is built on blind primary passion and not a logical scientific approach), it all points to one thing.
That if we want to only feed them and leave them, they will thrive further and increase to larger numbers making resources (including dog lovers' time)for that dream dog life we wish for them even scarcer where no one gets what they need

The Animal Birth Control Act (that governs these things) was passed with the misplaced zeal and no strategy. It's just a legal play of "how can you not love dogs, you in-human" with no structure or check on how things will work and if they do.

And the dog lovers' response: "Well, we know you all you want is to kill them. Over our dead body!", or something like that. Post this, the argument just gets too heady for the the sensible and over-hearty for those who actually need the other perspective for a better understanding of the issue.

A few things that can be done:

•  Neuter all females as soon as possible 
• Put dog feeders on record and let them volunteer to see that the dogs remain fed and hopefully   less threatening
• Tag dogs with their feeders so that there's a record that the dogs are fed
• Find dog owners and dog friendly people on their street who can keep food out and look after the dogs since they are from the same street
• Form a network of volunteers that works (going by the outrage of the pro-street dogs gang, there should be quite a few)
  

What's not being said

All these details apart, the crux of all of this is based on a single moral fix that both dog lovers and the rest can't get themselves out of: there is no way around the issue except for culling stray dog numbers down to a reasonable size that they can realistically care for.

The response of both so far has been to run as far away from the thought of culling (even if just their numbers) by emotionally over-engaging with their feelings for animals by feeding, leaving and leaving the animal and the issue on the street unattended till the next feed, hoping it'll resolve magically. The latter whine (like this write up) and take notice & speak up when there is an incident (hopefully unprovoked).

Little do they realise how similar their morals are about the issue. They're exact almost but are all too busy caught up trying not to be the evil person, and disgusted by the very thought. The way out of eternal moral quandaries is not to avoid them but to understand that some things are inevitable, and sad. Being sad at them is the pinnacle of humanity you can achieve in that situation. Avoiding the reality, in these situations, that it is sad (and inevitable) only exacerbates the situation till it gets worse.

As for what is to happen to the streets too full of dogs (it's a question of how many is too many), the question dog lovers ask still lingers, "How can you not be a dog person if you yourself are a human? How human are you even?" Do they mean how "dog" are you instead? It is still a confusing question.