Hunting practices in northern Australia and their implication for disease transmission between community dogs and wild dogs

Abstract

Objective This survey aimed to understand hunting practices involving domestic dogs in remote Indigenous communities in northern Australia and, in the context of disease transmission, describe the domestic–wild dog interface and intercommunity interactions of hunting dogs during hunting activities. Methods A cross‐sectional survey of 13 hunters from communities of the Northern Peninsula Area (NPA) of Queensland gathered information on demographics of hunters and hunting dogs, hunting practices and past encounters with wild dogs during hunting trips. Social networks that described the connections of hunters between NPA communities from hunting expeditions were developed. Results Most hunters interviewed were not aware of any diseases that could be transmitted to dogs (n = 11) or humans (n = 9) from wild animals while hunting. More than half (n = 7) of the respondents had experienced at least one wild dog encounter during hunting in the year prior to the interview. A map of the relative risk of interactions between wild and hunting dogs during hunting trips allowed the identification of high‐risk areas in the NPA; these areas are characterised by dense rainforests. The social networks at the community level resulted in relatively large density measures reflecting a high level of intercommunity connectedness. Conclusions This study contributes to our knowledge of Australian Indigenous hunting practices and supports the potential for disease transmission at the domestic–wild dog interface and intercommunity level through contacts between hunting dogs during hunting activities. Insights from this study also highlight the need for educational programs on disease management in Indigenous communities of northern Australia.

Investigation of the temporal roaming behaviour of free-roaming domestic dogs in Indigenous communities in northern Australia to inform rabies incursion preparedness

“…This highlights the need for effective movement controls in NPA communities, particularly in the early evening when there is both a greater proportion of dogs that are away from their residence, and those dogs are at greater distances from their residence. Some species such as feral pigs or cats are spill-over hosts for rabies, and whilst it is possible that infected individuals could present some risk (for example to hunters and their dogs 42 ), these populations are unlikely to become a reservoir of canine-rabies and present ongoing risks. However, wildlife canid populations such as red foxes are important hosts of rabies globally, and eradication of rabies in these populations is challenging 43,44 .…”

Seasonal and spatial overlap in activity between domestic dogs and dingoes in remote Indigenous communities of northern Australia

“…Although this was not found to be statistically significant in Dunn's test, a peak of unsupervised domestic dog activity was noticeable in areas that lay further away from the communities towards the tip of the peninsula, which was more pronounced during the wet season compared to the dry season (Figures 2 and 3). This finding is most certainly related to hunting excursions in the bush because these areas were commonly identified by NPA hunters as major hunting areas in a previous survey 11 . The higher level of activity in this area during the wet season is in agreement with the hunter survey, from which hunters reported practicing hunting activities more frequently during the wet season compared to the dry season (median of 12 vs 7.2 hunting trips per season, respectively), although seasonal differences in frequency of hunting trips were not statistically significant (P = 0.09).…”

“…The Northern Peninsula Area (NPA) in northern Queensland, which contains five remote Indigenous communities with an abundant population of free‐roaming domestic dogs, 9 has been identified as a potential rabies incursion point into Australia 8,10 . Together with the recognised roaming behaviour of community dogs in the NPA, 3 hunting activities using domestic dogs are commonly practiced by members of the NPA communities in areas distant from human settlements; during hunting trips, hunters often let their hunting dogs roam freely into the bush unsupervised 11 . A 1‐year camera‐trap study conducted in the NPA revealed the presence of a strong spatial correlation and temporal overlap in daily activities between unsupervised domestic dogs and dingoes, especially during the dry season, suggesting the existence of a wild–domestic interface for potential disease transmission in this equatorial region 12 .…”

“…Areas within a 1‐km distance to communities were associated with high levels of activity during the dry and wet seasons, which were found to be statistically different to activity indices in the intermediate distance category (1–10 km distance to communities) (Table 1). Free‐roaming NPA domestic dogs are predominantly active within a 1‐km distance from their residence based on GPS studies, 3 and the vast majority of hunting areas are located away from the communities based on a survey of hunters in the NPA 11 . Therefore, photographs of unsupervised domestic dogs within 1 km of communities were most likely related to roaming activity, although this assumption cannot be confirmed.…”

Rabies in Our Neighbourhood: Preparedness for an Emerging Infectious Disease

“…Thus, population parameters were available for Australian models of RABV spread in domestic dogs in the Torres Strait and NPA communities, and dingoes in the NPA. Importantly, thematic maps of the distribution of domestic dogs (and the extent of their roaming), dingoes and the potential sites of interaction between these populations were developed during an intense phase of field research [76][77][78][79][80][81].…”