Abstract:Free-ranging dogs are among the top global invasive species with major impacts on biodiversity and humans. Academicians in conservation or allied fields are at the forefront of investigating this conflict. But are their opinions impaired by their emotional attachment with dogs? We investigated this question through an online survey that reached 360 academicians across 139 institutions in India. We assessed the respondent's affinity towards dogs and their perception on their impacts, causes of this problem, suggestions on its mitigation and success of the mitigation measures. We found that although affinity towards dogs had no effect on respondent's perceptions of their impacts, their perceptions on the causes and suggested mitigation measures differed. Respondents who liked dogs suggested ineffective measures like reproductive control and mass adoption to mitigate their impacts, while also acknowledging that the suggested mitigation measures would never work due to multiple reasons. Through our results we show that academicians who are presumed to provide evidence-driven solutions opted for value-driven suggestions. This could be due to high consideration given to emotions in animal rights policies in the country. We interpret this contradiction using cognitive dissonance theory and suggest a need of encouraging a scientific temper of evidence-based mitigation measures.

India’s canine conundrum, a case of cognitive dissonance?