V olume 11 N o .

2 J uly 2020 • pages 1-12 MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH

KNOWLEDGE, AWARENESS AND PREVENTION OF RABIES AND

FREE ROAMING DOGS IN PENANG
DOROTHY, K.S.1*, KHOO, C.K.1, HO, H.W.1, NAVANITHAKUMAR, B.1, FAIZAH, H.M.S.1,
TISHRIN, M.I. 2 , ANUN, M. 2 , CHANDRAWATHANI, P. 3 AND QUAZA, N.H.N. 3
1 Veterinary Research Institute, Department of Veterinary Services Malaysia
2 Department of Veterinary Services, Pulau Pinang
3 Previously affiliated with Department of Veterinary Services Malaysia
* Corresponding author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT. Free roaming dogs (FRDs) are defined as unconfined dogs and are not prevented from roaming. In
Malaysia, the status quo of our FRDs and its management is inconclusive. This study was initiated after the 2015
rabies outbreak in Penang and many parties have been involved in their management. Henceforth, this survey
was conducted to determine the status quo of FRDs and its management, concomitantly with the other details
than comes along with it. Many aspects of these FRDs welfare knowledge were included in the questionnaire
and analysed accordingly. Basic analysis for 157 public respondents that consist of locals of Penang had been
accomplished, which brought to a success rate of 78.5%. Statistical analysis has been conducted to identify the
knowledge, awareness and prevention of Rabies and FRDs. Our survey also reported that 40% agreed that rabies
is a problem in Malaysia and 70% of respondents believed that children are at high risk of contracting it. Sixty-
nine percent were not knowledgeable about rabies and its zoonotic implications. In conclusion, it was noted that
the overall awareness and understanding level of Rabies knowledge is unsatisfactory. The results showed public
concern towards FRDs and encouraged the authorities to seek out improved methods of population and FRDs
control which is humane and acceptable in society.

Keywords: Free roaming dogs (FRDs), Penang, rabies, knowledge, awareness, prevention

INTRODUCTION The uncontrolled presence of dogs

with or without an owner is generally
Dogs were first domesticated by humans recognised to be a significant problem both
approximately 14,000 years ago and have for humans and animals. They are known
become closely associated with many human or called by different names in many parts
activities, including hunting, guarding and of society (Boitani et al. , 1995; Hughes and
herding. This association between these Macdonald, 2013). Free roaming dogs (FRDs)
two species was further strengthened over are defined as a family of dogs that stays
time in many cultures, with dogs entering in one community together and are not
dwellings and spending time with humans, confined to a yard or house.
as well as acting as a social partner and for Therefore, Dog Population
companionship (Beck, 2000; Duckler, 2002; Management (DPM) needed to be enacted
Dotson and Hyat, 2008). However, when for numerous animal welfare, public health
dogs are not provided with food and shelter and safety, and economic reasons with the
by humans as they are supposed to, they will aim of to improve the health and well-being
tend to roam. of FRDs, reduce problems that they may

1
MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH V olume 11 N o . 2 J uly 2020

cause and reduce the size or turnover of the the feeding and management of these free
population (Massei and Miller, 2013; Taylor roaming dogs in Penang. However, the actual
et al. , 2017). The DPM is a common practice status quo of our FRDs, its management
in many countries worldwide now to further and the involvement of these organisations
combat and permanently solve this matter in the welfare of these animals in terms of
as this FRD problem has become a global controlling population, disease prevention
problem (Sternheim, 2012). of rabies and treatment is unknown. Hence,
The Word Health Organisation (WHO), this was the pioneer study conducted in the
the World Organisation for Animal Health country, in Penang namely.
(OIE), the Food and Agriculture Organisation The culling of FRDs had generated
of the United Nations (FAO) and the Global controversy and mass protests by animal
Alliance for Rabies Control (GARC) have lovers and welfare activists around the
established a global “United Against Rabies” country, especially in Penang state. The main
collaboration to provide a common strategy concerns of the activists were what they
to achieve “zero human rabies deaths by perceived as the indiscriminate culling of free
2030” (Abela-Ridder, 2018). Examples of roaming dogs instead of mass vaccination
successful rabies elimination programmes of all dogs against rabies (Bamaiyi, 2015).
can be witnessed at Latin America and the Simultaneously, the Malaysian statistics have
Caribbean, Bangladesh, Mexico, Philippines, also indicated that the latest Sarawak Rabies
South Africa, Sri Lanka and United Republic episode 2018 has 16 human cases, claimed
of Tanzania (Abela-Ridder, 2018). WHO has 15 lives and left one survivor (child) with
also estimated that there are more than 200 severe neurological complications (MOH,
million stray dogs worldwide, and the total 2018; Navanithakumar et al. , 2019).
population of free roaming dogs makes up
about 75-85% of the global dog population MATERIALS AND METHOD
(WAP, 2013). Every year 69,000 people die
from rabies, while another 15 million receive This research project was a survey that
post-exposure treatment to avert the deadly involved questionnaires. The main categories
disease. Ninety-five percent of these cases included the public. Every respondent of this
occur in Asia and Africa, and 99% of the project was required to fill in a consent form
fatalities are caused by dogs (WAP, 2013; to give acknowledgement of involvement.
Bamaiyi, 2015; Menghistu et al., 2018). Respondents can either choose to be
In Malaysia, the status quo of our FRDs interviewed or fill in the questionnaires at
and its management is inconclusive. This their convenience (Dorothy et al., 2019).
study was initiated after the 2015 rabies The questionnaires prepared for public
outbreak in Penang and concerned many respondents were divided into seven main
parties that are either involved directly or sections that include the following: (A) Basic
indirectly in the management of these FRDs. Information of Participant, (B) Ownership
Animal lovers and welfare organisations of Dogs, (C) Free Roaming Dogs, (D) Waste
have been reported to have been involved in Management, (E) General Thought of

2
V olume 11 N o . 2 J uly 2020 MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH

Animal Welfare Issue, (F) General Thoughts RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

of rabies and (G) General Thoughts of Dogs
and Awareness of rabies (Dorothy et al., A total of 200 sampling questionnaires were
2019). Non-probability sampling technique carried out at the four different locations of
was adopted for this survey, specifically the sampling area. Analysis for 157 public
the convenience approach, as described respondents that consist of the locals of
by Elfil and Negida (2017). The method Penang questionnaire sampling had been
was selected due to the specific criteria of accomplished, which brought to a success
targeted respondents, who are the local rate of 78.5%. Statistical analysis has been
Penang residences, dog owners, feed FRDs conducted to identify the status quo of FRDs
and willingness to participate in the survey and its managements, concomitantly with
(Dorothy et al., 2019). the other details than comes along with
them.
Study Area
Demographic Profile of Respondents
The study was conducted in Penang. There
are five districts identified in Penang that The demographic charac teristic s of
are: Northeast Penang District, Southeast respondents are as shown in Table 1. Based
Penang District, North Seberang Perai on the results, the data on the gender of
District, South Seberang Perai District and respondents showed 61.5% are males and
Southwest Penang District. 38.5% females. The highest numbers were
respondents above 30 years old with 33.1%
Analysis and the lowest were respondents less than
20 years old with 6.8%. The numbers of
The questionnaires were designed so that respondents who were pet dog owners were
responses could be analysed by a Lickert 63.4% compared to 36.6% of non-pet dog
scale. Responses were listed in a scale owners. Only 34.4% of these respondents
of strongly agree to strongly disagree. fed the FRDs and 65.6% do not do so. Almost
Descriptive statistical analysis for each 57.3% of the respondents lived in terrace
answer was performed according to the houses followed by 19.7% in other types of
aspects outlined in each question. residents that include high rise buildings
The seven main sections as outlined such as condominiums and apartments. The
in the questionnaires were further compiled findings also revealed that in 22.7% of the
into four main categories that include respondents’ households there were at least
respondents’ demographic and rabies six people.
knowledge, awareness and prevention.
Results were tabulated and analysed in
Microsoft Excel. Descriptive statistics that are
obtained are further discussed below.

3
MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH V olume 11 N o . 2 J uly 2020

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of respondents in the study of management of FRDs

in Penang*.

Characteristic Number of Respondents Percentage (%)

Sex
Male 88 61.5
Female 55 38.5
Age (Years)
20 and below 10 6.8
21-30 48 32.4
31-40 49 33.1
41 above 41 27.8
Ownership of dogs
Yes 92 63.4
No 53 36.6
Volunteer to feed FRDs
Yes 54 34.4
No 103 65.6
Number in household
1-2 38 25.3
3-4 47 31.3
5-6 34 22.7
7 and above 31 20.7
Type of residents
Terrace house 90 57.3
Semi-detached 30 19.1
Bungalow 6 3
Others 31 19.7
* The total number of respondents was 157. The figures in this table omit missing data

4
V olume 11 N o . 2 J uly 2020 MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH

Table 2. Respondents response on free roaming dogs issue in their neighbourhood.

Total Total
FREE ROAMING ANIMALS: (n) (%)
They don’t bother me 70 44.6
How do you feel about
I like the idea having animals around that I don’t need to
the stray animals in your 49
take care of 31.2
neighbourhood?
Negative 38 24.2
At least once a month 56 35.7
How often do stray dogs
Several times a year 45 28.7
come to your home?
Rarely or never 56 35.7
Feed them/try to locate their owner or find them a new
56 21.9
home
Report to local animal welfare group or take to shelter 33 12.9
Try to ignore and hope they go away 103 40.2
How do you usually respond
to stray animals? Try to drive away (shouting at them, throwing rocks, etc.) 38 14.8
Shoot or poison 7 2.7
Call Animal Control 3 1.2
Others 16 6.3

How often do your At least once a month 48 30.6

neighbours’ dogs come to Several times a year 40 25.5
your home? Several times a year 69 43.9
Nothing – don’t mind them visiting 46 19.6
Call owner/take them home 63 26.9

How do you usually respond Try to ignore/hope they go away 88 37.6

when a neighbour’s dog Try to drive away (shouting at them, throwing rocks, etc.) 36 15.4
comes by? Shoot or poison 0 0.0
Call Animal Control 1 0.4
Others 0 0
Have you ever called Animal Yes 44 28.0
Control? No 113 72.0
* The total number of respondents was 157. The figures in this table omit missing data.

5
MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH V olume 11 N o . 2 J uly 2020

Rabies Knowledge, Awareness and Further analysis from the general

Prevention statements of rabies and dogs also revealed
that 22% of respondents strongly agreed
R a b i e s k n ow l e d g e, aw a r e n e s s a n d that rabies is a problem in Malaysia even
prevention were divided into four main parts though their understanding and knowledge
that consist of (1) knowledge and perception were poor. Our analysis also revealed that
on rabies, (2) animal bite incidents, (3) 74% of respondents disagreed that rabies
awareness and knowledge of medical can be prevented by euthanization of
assistance after a dog bite and (4) prevention FRDs (Figure 2). It was also noted that most
of rabies. of these respondents (70%) agreed that
children are at greater risk of contracting
Knowledge and Perception on Rabies rabies rather than adults (Table 3). This
statement supports the fact as mentioned by
Respondents were given eight questions in WHO and OIE that 40% of people bitten by
the questionnaire survey to test out their suspect rabid animals are children under 15
knowledge of rabies and how aware they years of age and children between the ages
are of the dangers. Simple questions that of 5 to 14 years are frequent victims (WAP,
included the definition of rabies, whom 2013; WHO, 2015).
and how the disease is transmitted, the
deadliness and prevention, treatment Animal Bite Incidents
regime and risk of infection were given to
respondents. The analysis from survey questions regarding
Respondents were also given a set animal bite incidents among respondents
of general statements of dogs and rabies had shown us that the ratio of those that had
as in Table 2 to identify their beliefs. The previous bite incidents and have not been
analysis of these sets of questions indicated bitten before are similar with 52.0% and the
that 69.0% of respondents were not latter 48% (Figure 3). Further investigation
knowledgeable about rabies and its zoonotic revealed 49.0% of respondents were bitten
implications (Figure 4). This survey also by FRDs while 51.0% were bitten by their
revealed that many respondents were not household dogs, whereas 60.0% of the
aware of the dangers of this disease as 39.0% respondents revealed they were bitten
of them were not sure if rabies could be elsewhere than their home or streets and
treatable or not yet alone the consequences 34.0% were bitten on the streets.
if not treated (45.0% respondents). As for
the prevention and risk of infection, 58.0% Awareness and Knowledge of Getting
of respondents were unfamiliar with the Medical Assistance
precaution steps that should be taken and
52.0% of the respondents were also unaware As for awareness and knowledge of
that they could be at risk of getting infected. getting medical help, Figure 4 and Figure
5 respectively indicates that 72% were

6
V olume 11 N o . 2 J uly 2020 MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH

Strongly agree
6% (10) Moderately agree
Knowledgeable
13% (23)
31% (49)
Neutral
Not knowledgeable Strongly disagree 7% (12)
69% (110) 48% (81)
Moderately
disagree
26% (26)

Figure 1. Percentage of respondents’

knowledge on Rabies and its zoonotic Figure 2. Percentage of respondents’
implications. believed for rabies prevention by
euthanisation.

Knowledgeable
No previous animal Had previous animal 28% (40)
bite incidents bite incidents
52% (82) 48% (75) Not knowledgeable
72% (103)

Figure 3. Percentage of respondents’ animal Figure 4. Percentage of respondents’

bite incidents experience. knowledge on treatment options available.

Knowledgeable
Not knowledgeable
44% (93)
56% (119)

Figure 5. Percentage of respondents’ knowledge on post-

exposure prophylaxis and first aid after a dog bite.

7
MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH V olume 11 N o . 2 J uly 2020

unfamiliar with the treatment options par with the ideology and stand of WHO,
available in which 56% do not know the and the OIE which states that vaccinating
next step after a dog bite for post-exposure dogs is the most cost-effective strategy for
prophylaxis (PEP) and first-aid of the wounds preventing rabies in people and elimination
regardless it is a rabid or non-rabid dog. in dogs. Dog vaccination reduces deaths
Respondents were unaware of the attributable to rabies and the need for PEP
PEP as recommended by WHO, and the as a part of dog bite patient care (WAP, 2013;
OIE that includes extensive washing and WHO, 2015).
local treatment of the wound as soon as Only 24% respondents disagreed with
possible after exposure, a course of potent this statement and 11% were neutral about
and effective rabies vaccine that meets WHO it.
standards and the administration of rabies
immunoglobulin (RIG), if indicated, that Education on dog behaviour and bite
should be followed if bitten by rabid dogs. prevention
Fur th e r inte r v iew in g ha d als o
indicated that respondents were unaware of WHO and OIE have also stated that
the extensive wound washing method that education on dog behaviour and bite
includes immediate and thorough flushing prevention for both children and adults is an
and washing of the wound for a minimum of essential extension of a rabies vaccination
15 minutes with soap and water, detergent, programme and can decrease both the
povidone iodine or other substances that kill incidence of human rabies and the financial
the rabies virus. burden of treating dog bites. Increasing
awareness of rabies prevention and control
Prevention of Rabies in communities includes education and
information on responsible pet ownership,
Rabies is a preventable viral disease how to prevent dog bites, and immediate
which occurs in more than 150 countries care measures after a bite. Engagement
and territories. (WAP, 2013) Increasing and ownership of the programme at the
awareness of rabies prevention and control community level increases reach and uptake
in communities includes vaccination, of key messages (WAP, 2013; WHO, 2015).
education and information on responsible This statement is also agreed by 84%
pet ownership, how to prevent dog bites, respondents in this study (Table 3). From this
and immediate care measures after a bite. table, 38% respondents strongly agree and
46% moderately agree. Thirteen percent
Eliminating rabies in dogs by vaccination of respondents have neutral opinions of
prevention of rabies by education. Education
Table 3 indicates that 66% respondents on dog behaviour and its movement is
agreed that rabies can be effectively important for bite prevention purposes.
prevented by vaccinating dogs, as rabies Learning and understanding dogs’ instinct
is a vaccine-preventable disease. This is in on its surrounding is important as it will

8
V olume 11 N o . 2 J uly 2020 MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH

Table 3. Respondents knowledge and perception on Rabies and dogs in general.

RESPONDENTS KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION
Strongly Moderately Moderately Strongly
agree Agree Neutral Disagree disagree
GENERAL STATEMENTS Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
ON DOGS AND RABIES (n) (%) (n) (%) (n) (%) (n) (%) (n) (%)
In general, all dogs are
8 5 14 9 14 9 52 33 69 44
dangerous
Stray dogs are
49 31 12 8 22 14 38 24 36 23
dangerous
Rabies is a problem in
48 22 30 18 18 11 34 20 36 22
Malaysia
Rabies is a problem in
31 14 25 11 7 3 78 36 78 36
my area
Children are at a greater
risk of contracting rabies 70 37 62 33 14 7 13 7 31 16
than adults
Rabies can be
effectively prevented by 45 28 61 38 18 11 18 11 20 13
vaccinating dogs
Rabies can be
effectively prevented
10 6 23 13 12 7 44 26 81 48
by euthanizing (killing)
stray dogs
Rabies can be prevented
by educating people 59 38 71 46 13 8 9 6 3 2
about the disease
* The total number of respondents was 157. The figures in this table omit missing data.

react to it accordingly as perceived by its how to react if they had encountered a dog
brains (WAP, 2013; WHO, 2015). A set of in the streets generally (Table 4). Our analysis
questions were included in the questionnaire had also revealed that respondents also did
survey to determine how respondents will not know how to react if dogs run up to
react to different situations involving dogs them (72%), were chasing (60%), jumping
per say (Table 4). Questions included were (65%) or barking (66%) at them in various
respondents’ response if dogs were chasing, types of scenarios as shown in Table 4.
jumping or barking at them during different This clearly shows that education is
activities. crucial in terms of awareness of rabies and
Our analysis revealed that 64% of preventing dog bites. Dogs are the main
respondents were not knowledgeable of source of human rabies deaths, contributing

9
MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH V olume 11 N o . 2 J uly 2020

Table 4. Respondents response when dealing with dogs in different situations.

RESPONSE WHEN DEALING WITH DOGS Total (n) Total (%)

What do you do if you meet a dog Yes 56 36
in the street? No 101 64
Stop playing, stand very still and don’t shout or scream 43 28
You are running or playing and a Keep on playing, chase the dog away and shout at the dog 81 52.3
dog runs up to you. Should you Stand still and shout at the dog or scream. Kick the dog if
30 19.5
the dog comes close to you
Stop riding and stand still 63 40.2
Carry on riding away as fast as you can and hope the dog
You are riding a bicycle and a dog 71 33.8
doesn’t catch you
chases you. Should you
Stand still and shout at the dog or scream. Kick the dog if
41 26.1
the dog comes close
Try to turn your back to the dog and stand still 54 34.4
Start to run away, shouting at the dog and kicking the dog
82 33.1
A dog jumps at you. Should you away
Stand still and push the dog off you, screaming and
51 32.5
shouting
Look at the floor and slowly back away from the dog 53 33.8
Run up to the dog shouting at the dog to stop making such
A dog barks at you. Should you 75 47.8
a noise
Start to run away screaming and shouting 10 18.5
* The total number of respondents was 157. The figures in this table omit missing data.

up to 99% of all rabies transmissions to dog behaviour, dos and don’ts when
humans. The one and only way to do it is to interacting with dogs in children’s education
learn, understand and practice what we have of all ages as well as in adults will definitely
learnt on how to recognise and react when help (WAP, 2013; WHO, 2015).
playing with a dog or in situations of threat Educ ation and information on
(WAP, 2013; WHO, 2015). Responsible Pet Ownership (RDO) will also
Dogs will normally exhibit their definitely help in the prevention of rabies
emotions or reactions by body movements and dog bite. Our study has also indicated
and recognising that is very important to that FRDs with owners are more compared
prevent dog bites. A dog will only exhibit to FRDs without owners. Hence, all pet
signs of fear and bite if it feels that it is in owners should know and practice the five
danger and being threatened. Incorporating freedoms that are in the Responsible Pet
animal welfare, learning and understanding

10
V olume 11 N o . 2 J uly 2020 MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH

Ownership (RDO) guidelines as outlined by REFERENCES

DPM (FAO, 2014; Taylor et al. , 2017).
1. Abela-Ridder, B. (Eds.). (2018). ZERO BY 30: The Global
Strategic Plan to end human deaths from dog-mediated
CONCLUSION rabies by 2030. FAO and WHO. https://www.who.int/
neglected_diseases/zoonoses/en/
2. Amparo, A.C.B, Mendoza E.C.B, Licuan D.A., Valenzuela,
In conclusion, the finding in this study L.M., Madalipay, J.D., Jayme, S.I. and Taylor, L.H.
indicates that the respondents were very (2019). Impact of integrating rabies education into
the curriculum of public elementary schools in Ilocos
aware of this FRD matter and did want a
Norte, Philippines on rabies knowledge, and animal
solution in a proper manner for the benefit bite incidence. Front. Public Health, 7, Article 119. https://
of both dogs and people. Therefore, the doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00119
3. Bamaiyi, P.H. (2015). Outbreak of canine rabies in
Government, NGO and the public should Malaysia: Review, Analysis and Perspectives: J. Vet. Adv.,
lend a helping hand to settle FRDs problem 5(12), 1181-1190.
4. Beck, A.M. (2000). The human-dog relationship: A tale
together.
of two species. In: Macpherson, C.N.L., Meslin, F.X. and
As for the rabies awareness and Wandeler A.I. (Eds.), Dogs, Zoonoses and Public Health.
dog bite prevention, many respondents pp. 1-16. CABI, Wallingford, UK.
5. Boitani, L., Francisci, F., Ciucci, P. and Andreoli, G. (1995).
were found to have poor knowledge with Population biology and ecology of feral dogs in Central
minimal awareness about the disease and Italy. In: Serpell, J. (Ed.), The domestic dog: Its evolution,
behaviour and interactions with people. pp. 217-244.
how to prevent it. The awareness level
Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
of respondents in regards to compulsory 6. Devleesschauwer, B., Aryal, A., Sharma, B.K., Ale, A.,
medical measures after an immediate dog Declercq, A. & Depraz, S. (2016). Epidemiology, impact
and control of rabies in Nepal: A systematic review.
bite exposure was also inadequate despite PLoSNegl Trop Dis, 10(2), e0004461. https://doi:10.1371/
not being aware that the dog that could journal.pntd. 0004461.
7. Dorothy, K.S., Khoo, C. K., Ho, H.W., Navanithakumar, B.,
have bitten them could be a rabid dog.
Faizah Hanim, M.S., Tishrin, M.I., Anun, M. and Quaza
T herefore, the k nowle dge and Nizamuddin, H.N. (2019). A study of public’s preference
awareness of rabies prevention should of Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) scheme against Trap-
Euthanasia (TE) scheme of free roaming dogs in
be increased and include the following: Penang. Malaysian J. Vet. Res., 10(2), 113-124.
vaccination, education and information on 8. Dotson, M. & Hyatt, E.M. (2008). Understanding dog–
human companionship. J. Business Res., 61, 457-466.
responsible pet ownership, how to prevent
https://doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.019
dog bites, and immediate care measures 9. Duckler, G. (2002). The economic value of companion
after a bite. More effort should be put animals: a legal and anthropological argument for
special valuation. Animal Law Journal, 8, 199-221.
in to educate people in all walks of life 10. Elfil M. and Negida A. (2017). Sampling methods in
about rabies and its precaution methods, clinical research: an educational review. Emergency
(Tehran), 5(1), e52.
even though children are at greater risk of
11. FAO (2014). Dog population management. Report of the
contracting rabies. Both the Government FAO/WSPA/IZSAM expert meeting – Banna, Italy, 14-19
and NGOs should join hands to educate the March 2011. In: Animal Production and Health Report.
No. 6. Rome. Food and Agriculture Organisation of
public about the dangers and prevention of the United Nations and World Animal Protection and
this preventable disease. Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale Dell’abruzzo “G.
Caporale”. Rome. E-ISBN 978-92-5-108579-0 (PDF)
12. 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:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.005

11
MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH V olume 11 N o . 2 J uly 2020

13. Jones, K.E., Patel, N.G., Levy, M.A., Storeygard, A., Balk, 21. Raymond T.N., Roland M.E., Francoise K.M., Francis Z.,
B. and Gittleman, J.L. (2008). Global trends in emerging Livo E.F. and Clovis S.T. (2015). Do open garbage dumps
infectious diseases. Nature, 451, 990-993. play a role in canine rabies transmission in Biyem-Assi
14. Krishna C.S. (2010). The success of the ABC-AR health district in Cameroon? Infect. EcolEpidemiol, 5,
Programme in India. Accessed online at http://www. 26055. https:doi:10.3402/iee.v5.26055
fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/S.%20 22. Sternheim I. (2012). How Holland became free of
Chinny%20%20Krishna_ABC_August_2010.doc stray dogs. Isis 2-9. Accessed from http://info@
15. Macpherson C.N.L., Meslin F.X. and Wandeler A.I. animalfoundationplatform.nl
(2012). Dogs, zoonoses and public health (2nd Ed.). CABI: 23. Taylor, L.H., Wallace, R.M., Balaram, D., Lindenmayer,
Wallingford, UK. J.M., Eckery, D.C., Mutonono-Watkiss, B., Parravani,
16. Massei, G. and Miller, L. (2013). A review of the E. & Nel, L.H. (2017). The Role of Dog Population
interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and Management in Rabies Elimination. A Review of Current
wildlife. Theriogenology, 80, 829-838. Approaches and Future Opportunities. Frontiers in Vet.
17. Menghistu H.T., Thaiya A.G.,Bajitie M., Bundi J., Gugssa Sci., 4, 1-16 https:/doi:10.3389/fvets2017.00109.
G., Bsrat A., Kirui G., Kitaa J.M.A., Tsegaye Y. and Teferi 24. WAP (2013). World Animal Protection. Controlling rabies
T.(2018). Free roaming dogs and the communities’ one humane solution, three reasons why. http://www.
knowledge, attitude and practices of rabies incidence/ worldanimalprotection.org/sites/default/files/int_files/
human exposures: Cases of selected settings in controlling_rabies-one_humane_solution.pdf
Ethiopia and Kenya. Ethiop. J. Health Dev., 32(1), 27-35. 25. WHO (2015). Global School Health Initiatives: Achieving
18. MOH (2018). Situasi Terkini Rabies di Sarawak. Media Health and Education Outcomes. Report of a meeting,
statement 11 Dec 2018, Director-General of Health Bangkok, Thailand, 23–25 November 2015. Report
Malaysia. Accesse d f rom ht tps: // k pkesihatan. No WHO/NMH/PND/17.7. Geneva, Swit zerland.
c o m / 2 0 18 / 12 / 11/ k e n y a t a a n - a k h b a r - k p k -11 - Accessed from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/
disember2018-situasi-terkini-rabies-di-sarawak /, handle/10665/259813/WHO-NMHPND-17.7-eng.pdf
Ministry of Health Malaysia. 26. Young, J.K., Olson, K.A., Reading, R.P., Amgalanbaatar
19. Muthunuwan J.T., Ganhewa A.G.K.H, Perera H.D.S.G, S. and Berger, J. (2011). Is wildlife going to the dogs?
Hishaam M., Bandara W.M.M.S and Gunasekera H.A.K.M Impacts of feral and free-roaming dogs on wildlife
(2017). Preliminary survey on knowledge, attitudes and populations. BioScience, 61(2), 125-132. ht tps:/
practices regarding rabies. Sri Lankan J. Infect. Dis., 7(1), doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.7.
38-46. http://doi.org/10.4038/sljid.v7i1.8133
20. Navanithakumar, B., Sohayati, A.R., Rohaiza, Y., Sarah ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. The authors wish to acknowledge
Dadang, A.,Mariani, H., Leonora, T.M. and Dorothy, K.S. the Director-General of Veterinary Services Malaysia for his
(2019). An Overview of Rabies Outbreak in Malaysia. support and cooperation.
Malay. J. Vet. Res., 11(2), 148-158.

12