<p class="bodytext">In a first-of-its-kind initiative, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike (BBMP) has launched a Rs 2.88 crore annual programme to feed the city’s stray dogs. The plan will provide a daily meal of chicken and rice to about 5,000 dogs across eight zones, with about 500 dogs per zone. Food will be prepared centrally and delivered to roughly 125 feeding spots. On the surface, this appears to be a welcome and humane gesture. Feeding stray animals is an act of compassion and a civic responsibility that many NGOs and volunteers already undertake without state support. By formalising this effort, BBMP is acknowledging the importance of animal welfare and public health. Well-fed dogs are typically less aggressive, and the programme could reduce the risk of dog bites and bring down conflicts with motorists and pedestrians. Moreover, regular feeding can build trust with strays, aiding Animal Birth Control (ABC) and vaccination efforts, both of which are vital to reducing stray dog populations and curbing the spread of diseases like rabies. There are also broader civic benefits. When strays are fed, they are less likely to scavenge through garbage, thereby contributing to cleaner public spaces. </p>.<p class="bodytext">However, the scheme is not without its flaws, and raises questions about implementation, priority and sustainability. For starters, BBMP’s own estimate puts the stray dog population at around three lakh, while the scheme targets a mere 5,000, or less than 2% of the total. Will the programme meaningfully impact the overall welfare and behaviour of street dogs, or is this a symbolic gesture with limited reach? There are also concerns about unintended consequences. Regular feeding spots could attract large packs, posing a threat to nearby residents, especially senior citizens and children. Without parallel aggressive sterilisation drives, increased survival rates could worsen the stray population problem in the long run. A particularly troubling aspect is the risk of corruption, given the BBMP’s questionable history of accountability. The BBMP should conduct this initiative in coordination with local NGOs and dog lovers to ensure effective implementation, avoid duplication of efforts, and facilitate better coordination.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Feeding stray dogs is undoubtedly a noble act, but institutionalising it at the cost of public funds demands deeper scrutiny. The ultimate goal should be long-term animal welfare through sterilisation, vaccination, sheltering and adoption. Kindness must not be a substitute for comprehensive policy. If the BBMP wants to genuinely tackle the stray dog menace, it must ensure that the initiative is tightly integrated with ABC efforts. The programme should be closely monitored and tightly audited. The city doesn’t need yet another well-meaning effort lost to mismanagement.</p>
<p class="bodytext">In a first-of-its-kind initiative, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike (BBMP) has launched a Rs 2.88 crore annual programme to feed the city’s stray dogs. The plan will provide a daily meal of chicken and rice to about 5,000 dogs across eight zones, with about 500 dogs per zone. Food will be prepared centrally and delivered to roughly 125 feeding spots. On the surface, this appears to be a welcome and humane gesture. Feeding stray animals is an act of compassion and a civic responsibility that many NGOs and volunteers already undertake without state support. By formalising this effort, BBMP is acknowledging the importance of animal welfare and public health. Well-fed dogs are typically less aggressive, and the programme could reduce the risk of dog bites and bring down conflicts with motorists and pedestrians. Moreover, regular feeding can build trust with strays, aiding Animal Birth Control (ABC) and vaccination efforts, both of which are vital to reducing stray dog populations and curbing the spread of diseases like rabies. There are also broader civic benefits. When strays are fed, they are less likely to scavenge through garbage, thereby contributing to cleaner public spaces. </p>.<p class="bodytext">However, the scheme is not without its flaws, and raises questions about implementation, priority and sustainability. For starters, BBMP’s own estimate puts the stray dog population at around three lakh, while the scheme targets a mere 5,000, or less than 2% of the total. Will the programme meaningfully impact the overall welfare and behaviour of street dogs, or is this a symbolic gesture with limited reach? There are also concerns about unintended consequences. Regular feeding spots could attract large packs, posing a threat to nearby residents, especially senior citizens and children. Without parallel aggressive sterilisation drives, increased survival rates could worsen the stray population problem in the long run. A particularly troubling aspect is the risk of corruption, given the BBMP’s questionable history of accountability. The BBMP should conduct this initiative in coordination with local NGOs and dog lovers to ensure effective implementation, avoid duplication of efforts, and facilitate better coordination.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Feeding stray dogs is undoubtedly a noble act, but institutionalising it at the cost of public funds demands deeper scrutiny. The ultimate goal should be long-term animal welfare through sterilisation, vaccination, sheltering and adoption. Kindness must not be a substitute for comprehensive policy. If the BBMP wants to genuinely tackle the stray dog menace, it must ensure that the initiative is tightly integrated with ABC efforts. The programme should be closely monitored and tightly audited. The city doesn’t need yet another well-meaning effort lost to mismanagement.</p>
