Telling Warlpiri Dog Stories

Musharbash, Yasmine

doi:10.1080/00664677.2017.1303603

Cited by 17 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In remote communities in northern Australia, enforcing Westernized modes of dog keeping that stop dogs from roaming is likely to come at the expense of valued and health-enhancing dimensions within and across extended family structures. Moreover, the imposition of control on dog populations can be construed as an extension of colonial practices and an attempt to regulate Aboriginal life 8 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dogs also have cultural value, which is demonstrated through the prominence of dogs in dreaming stories, and as totems (both domestic and wild dogs), and their integration in the kinship system through ‘skin names’ 10 , 11 . Rather than being stray animals or a surplus canine population, free-roaming dogs are valued as an intrinsic part of every-day life and are of great importance to individuals and to the social and cultural life of their communities 7 , 8 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Brookes

Ward

Rock

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Brookes

Ward

Rock

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7–8). More recently, there has been ethnographic discussions on social engagement with camp dogs, including Musharbash’s (2017) paper about Telling Warlpiri Dog Stories in desert communities and Fijn’s (2018) comparative analysis of canines in Mongolia and Australia, including dingoes as a significant totemic animal.…”

Section: Multispecies Anthropology In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

A sensory approach for multispecies anthropology

Fijn

Kavesh

2020

Australian J of Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both ethnohistorical accounts and Aboriginal oral traditions indicate that Indigenous communities throughout mainland Australia maintained complex social relations with wild‐caught dingo pups (Balme & O'Connor 2016; Barker & Macintosh 1979; Breckwoldt 1988; Cahir & Clark 2013; Corbett 1995; Fijn 2018; Gollan 1982, 1984; Gould 1969, 1970, 1980; Hamilton 1972; Hayden 1975; Jones 1970; Kolig 1973; Koungoulos 2017; Koungoulos & Fillios 2020a, 2020b; Macintosh 1974, 1975; Meehan et al . 1999; Meggitt 1965; Musharbash 2017; Pierotti and Fogg 2017; Philip 2016; Philip & Garden 2016; Rose 1992; Shipman 2021; Smith 2015a; Smith & Litchfield 2009; White 1972). Available evidence suggests that during the annual dingo denning and whelping season (June–August), when litters are born (Purcell 2010), Aboriginal people set out to look for dens, typically located in caves (Thomson 1992: 523) or abandoned burrows, hollow logs and cavities formed under trees and tussocks (Breckwoldt 1988; Hudson et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It therefore seems reasonable to infer that there may have been widespread cultural prohibitions against allowing sexually mature dingoes to reside permanently in human society. These animals eventually reached the stage in their life history during which their presence posed an ongoing threat to human values (e.g., Musharbash 2017; Rose 1992). It is likely, as widely assumed, that most of these young adult canines were indeed permitted to leave for the bush (Rose 1992, 2012), were driven away, or killed (Rose 1992: 176).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dingoes and domestication

Brumm

2021

Archaeology in Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aboriginal Australians are known to have routinely taken dingo pups from wild dens to rear as companion animals, with the mature canids typically returning to the bush to mate. Available accounts emphasise the strong emotional bonds between Indigenous people and “camp dingoes”, which were essentially raised as though they were human. Yet despite the closeness of human–canine relations in Australia, it is widely contended that Aboriginal people did not domesticate dingoes. The accepted thinking is that while the dingoes lived part of their lives with humans, they were ultimately “free agents” that foraged and reproduced independently. Here, I propose that the Aboriginal practice of raising wild‐caught dingo pups generated a distinct population of free‐roaming adult dingoes that were socialised to interact with humans and may have remained loosely associated with them. I suggest that this hitherto unrecognised dingo ecotype, which should not be thought of as truly wild, yielded most of the pups taken from the bush by humans. Contrary to received wisdom, therefore, Aboriginal peoples’ interactions with dingoes involved management and domestication processes, but not as conventionally defined (i.e., controlled breeding, artificial selection).

show abstract

Telling Warlpiri Dog Stories

Cited by 17 publications

References 16 publications

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

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

A sensory approach for multispecies anthropology

Dingoes and domestication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About