Demographic studies of owned dogs in the Northern Peninsula Area, Australia, to inform population and disease management strategies

Degeling

Eeden

et al. 2020

Animals

Self Cite

Dingo classification and management is complicated by hybridisation with domestic dogs. Northern Australia is a relatively high-risk zone for a rabies incursion, and in the event of an incursion, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who reside in this region would prioritise the protection of dingoes. Therefore, the classification of dingoes in this context is important. Twelve pictures of canids with features associated with both dingoes and domestic dogs from camera traps in the Northern Peninsula Area (NPA), northern Queensland, were shown to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rangers (n = 3), biosecurity officers (n = 2), environmental health workers (n = 2), and residents (n = 39) in the NPA. Nearly all pictures (10/12) were classified as dingo or domestic dog (none as hybrid) and two were inconclusive (no overall agreement). Dingoes were consistently identified as medium to large-framed dogs, with a long nose, pointed ears, narrow abdomen, a bushy or feathered tail, and smooth coats of a single base colour. Some hybrid features were acceptable, including sable coats, lack of white tail tip or feet, and curled tail. These findings are a preliminary guide for identifying canids in the NPA region for whom management might be controversial. Building on this approach via further consultation with residents is needed to inform rabies response policy. Our approach using locally acquired camera trap pictures could also be extended to other regions in which dingoes have value but their management is controversial.

Section: Discussion With Stakeholder Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is a Dingo? The Phenotypic Classification of Dingoes by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Residents in Northern Australia

Degeling

Eeden

et al. 2020

Animals

Self Cite

“…In iterations in which propagation occurred, case rate was generally < 3 cases/month without vaccination, and 1.5 cases/month when 70% of dogs were pre-emptively vaccinated. At such low incidence, we believe that canine rabies is likely to have a low probability of detection in communities where there is high population turnover and aggressive free-roaming dogs can be normal (25, 26). In these populations, dog deaths and fights between dogs are not unusual.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rabies-induced behavioural changes are key to rabies persistence in dog populations: investigation using a network-based model

Duerr

Ward

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

18Canine-rabies was endemic pre-urbanisation, yet little is known about how it persists in small 19 populations of dogs typically seen in rural and remote regions. Our objectives were to simulate 20 rabies outbreaks in such populations (50-90 dogs) using a network-based model, and 21 investigate the influence of rabies-induced behavioural changes. 22Such changes -increased bite frequency and either roaming or paralysis that increased the 23 number or duration of contacts, respectively -were essential for disease propagation. Spread 24 occurred in approximately 50% of model simulations and in these, very low case rates (2.0-2.6 25 cases/month) over long durations (95% range 20-473 days) were predicted. Consequently, 26 disease detection is a challenge, risking human infection and spread to other communities via 27 dog movements. Even with 70% pre-emptive vaccination, spread occurred in >30% of model 28 simulations (in these, median case rate was 1.5/month with 95% range of 15-275 days 29 duration). 30We conclude that the social disruption caused by rabies-induced behavioural change is the key to 31 explaining how rabies persists in small populations of dogs. We predict that vaccination of 32 substantially greater than the recommended 70% of dog populations is required to prevent rabies 33 emergence in currently free rural areas. 34 35

“…In 2016, 2,796 people lived in the five participating communities, of whom 87% were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 30 . Recent published estimates indicate that in 2017 the total dog population was approximately 813 dogs (95% range 770–868) of which 254–680 could be free-roaming; that is owned and unrestricted 4 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contrary to western norms, it does not indicate that dogs lack value 1 – 3 . Free-roaming dogs are abundant in many remote communities in Australia, where they live in close relationships to humans 4 – 7 . Almost all dogs are owned and fulfil roles as companions, protectors (both physical and spiritual) and as hunters 7 – 9 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One Health promotion and the politics of dog management in remote, northern Australian communities

Ward

Rock

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

Community perspectives are rarely sought or integrated into dog management policy and practice. Dog management in remote communities in Australia has focused on reducing the number of dogs, which is often implemented by visiting veterinarians, despite widely-held opinions that fly-in-fly-out services provide only temporary solutions. We conducted participatory research in a group of remote communities in northern Australia to explore how dog-related problems arise and are managed, and explain their impacts from a One Health perspective. Over the course of a year, 53 residents from a range of backgrounds contributed through in-depth interviews with key community service providers, and informal semi-structured discussions with community residents. Free-roaming dogs have broader impacts on canine and human health than previously documented. Dog-keeping norms that enable free-roaming can enhance human and dog wellbeing and intra-family connectivity. This can also cause disengagement and conflict with other residents, leading to resentment and occasionally violence towards dogs. Dog-related problems are underpinned by constraints associated with remote-living, governance and differing sociocultural norms. Focusing on dog population reduction detracts from the welfare benefits and sociocultural value of free-roaming dogs and undermines community-determined management that can overcome constraints to support local values and co-promote canine and human wellbeing.