Objective To explore the method, frequency and dose of deworming in stray dogs and wild canine, evaluate the deworming effect, and provide reference for controlling hydatid infection in stray dogs and wild canine. Methods Four villages were randomly selected in each of the 3 alveolar echinococcosis endemic areas in Ningxia (Xiji, Yuanzhou and Haiyuan) as deworming sites for stray dogs, and 2 sites were selected in each of the natural forest farms in the 3 counties (districts) as deworming sites for wild canine. The praziquantel was administered from April to June and September in 2023 (chewable tablets, 0.1 g/tablet). The linear method and circular method were used in both stray dog deworming sites and wild canine deworming sites, and each administration method was performed with dosages of 1-tablet and 2-tablet. Three days after administration, the drug swallow rate at each deworming site was calculated. Fresh fecal samples were collected from canine, and Echinococcus coproantigen was detected by ELISA to calculate the positive rate. The cloth clip method was used to capture The small rodents at wild canine deworming sites were captured using trap layout method and identified. The suspected echinococcosis lesions of small rodents were paraffin sectioned and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. The protoscoleces were observed under the microscope to calculate the rodent prevalence rate. The database was established using Epi info 3.5.3 software and SPSS 22.0 software was used for statistical analysis. Rates were compared by ANOVA, chi-square test or U test. Results The drug swallow rate at the stray dog deworming sites using the circular method was 70.98% (269/379), which was higher than that of 45.38% (172/379) using the linear method (F = 13.577, P < 0.05); there were no statistically significant differences in the swallow rates between the linear method and the circular method for different dosages (F = 0.731, 1.124, both P > 0.05). The drug swallow rate at the wild canine deworming sites using the linear method was 72.94% (124/170), which was higher than that of 49.12% (84/171) using the circular method (F = 4.950, P < 0.05); there were no statistically significant differences in the swallow rates between the linear method and the circular method for different dosages (F = 0.200, 0.341, both P > 0.05). The coproantigen positivity rate of stray dog deworming sites using the circular method was 2.84% (14/493), which was lower than that of 5.66% (28/495) using the linear method (χ² = 4.423, P < 0.05); and the coproantigen positivity rate of wild canine deworming sites using the linear method was 2.85% (7/246), which was lower than that of 6.94% (17/245) using the circular method (χ² = 4.013, P < 0.05). A total of 562 small rodents of 9 species were captured, with a prevalence rate of 0.89% (5/562). All 5 diseased rodents were Spermophilcus alashanicus, with the prevalence rate of 1.58% (5/317). The prevalence rates of small rodents at the deworming sites of the linear method and the circular method were 1.18% (2/169) and 2.03% (3/148), respectively, with no statistically significant difference (χ² = 0.350, P > 0.05). Conclusion The linear method is suitable for administering drugs to wild canine along highways, streams and other environments. The circular method is suitable for administering drugs to stray dogs in living environments. Continuous administration for more than 3 months can effectively control hydatid infection in canine hosts.