Owned dog and cat populations in remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory: a retrospective study A Burleigh,* S McMahon and S Kiely
Objective To determine the population of owned dogs and cats in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory (NT), and compare the data with those for the average Australian household. Methods Results of 20 Indigenous community animal health programs were analysed for species present and dog and cat numbers. The female breeding and puppy populations were also identified. Results The average dog population density was significantly higher than the average Australian household, with an average of 24.4 dogs per 10 households, but the average cat population density was similar (3.3 cats per 10 households). Numbers of other species were not determined. The average percentage of puppies in these communities was 17.6% of the treated canine population, the average percentage of breeding canine females was 18.6% of the treated canine population, and the average percentage of breeding feline females was 19.7% of the total feline population. Conclusions Dog populations in NT Indigenous communities were at least 6.3-fold higher per household compared with data for the rest of Australia. Cat populations per household were similar to the overall population. Factors contributing to the relatively high dog populations in remote Indigenous communities include a lack of veterinary presence, community remoteness, poor socioeconomic factors, poor house and yard designs, cultural reasons, communal beliefs, lack of community animal management and a lack of funding. We believe that animal health programs are an important way of addressing a number of these issues. Other elements that should be addressed include improving house and yard design, increasing education regarding animal health, care and welfare, and increasing the training and presence of health and animal professionals. Keywords Aboriginal culture; cats; dogs; Indigenous communities; Northern Territory; population studies Abbreviations ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics; ACAC, Australian Companion Animal Council; NT, Northern Territory Aust Vet J 2015;93;145–150
D
doi: 10.1111/avj.12321
ogs are an integral part of Aboriginal culture and society, being kept for companionship, hunting, protection, warmth, sentimentality and in some instances because they are
*Corresponding author. Aboriginal Community Veterinary Services. Katherine, Northern Territory, Australia; [email protected] © 2015 Australian Veterinary Association
SMALL ANIMALS
SMALL ANIMALS
considered to be are considered ‘sacred’.1,2 Contrary to popular belief, the majority of dogs in Indigenous communities are not strays, but are ‘owned’ by people and many owners have a true sense of care for their animals. Unfortunately, dog numbers in remote Indigenous communities of northern Australia are often excessive because of a high proportion of fertile dogs, high numbers of roaming animals, leading to increased chance of breeding, and/or a lack of development or enforcement of council by-laws. There have only been limited peer-reviewed case studies that have looked at dog numbers in individual communities in Australia. One study showed that the dog numbers were high for the targeted community,3 but that study had low external validity for other unrelated remote Indigenous communities. Both the large populations of dogs and their tendency to roam in remote Indigenous communities in Australia are concerning, as these large populations can influence both animal and human health. High dog populations can lead to greater interactions between animals and people, resulting in injuries and disease that may affect the health of people in these communities.4,5 Local news stories report that dogs have been responsible for many serious injuries in remote Indigenous communities, in some cases resulting in human deaths. Dogs in communities can also negatively affect other species of animals and there are many anecdotal reports of dogs attacking horses, livestock, cats and poultry. Roaming dogs can increase risks to human safety. There have been reports of dogs wandering in front of vehicles causing the vehicles, to veer off roads, dogs being hit by cars, and dogs wandering onto airfields and interfering with aircraft takeoff and landing. Dogs can also affect people’s health and wellbeing by stealing food resources, spreading garbage, increasing faecal pollution, causing noise pollution and spreading zoonotic parasites (e.g. Giardia, scabies, roundworms, hookworms and tapeworms).4–6 One of the key factors in the spread of zoonotic diseases from animals to humans is the number of animals in and around the home environment.5 This is a major concern in remote Indigenous communities because large dog populations often roam from house to house. Increased numbers of roaming dogs can also affect the welfare of the dogs themselves. There is increased competition for food, increased frequency of fights, potential for large outbreaks of disease and dangerous pack behaviour. Anecdotally, there are higher levels of parasites and Australian Veterinary Journal Volume 93, No 5, May 2015
145
SMALL ANIMALS
SMALL ANIMALS
diseases in dogs in Indigenous communities when compared with urban Australia. External parasites such as the brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus), cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis), stickfast flea (Echidnophaga gallinacea), biting lice (Heterodoxus spiniger), demodectic mite (Demodex canis) and sarcoptic mite (Sarcoptes scabiei) commonly affect dogs in remote Indigenous communities and can negatively affect their health. Internal parasites, including hookworms (Ancylostoma caninum), Giardia sp., heartworms (Dirofilaria immitis), roundworms (Toxocara canis), whipworms (Trichuris vulpis), tapeworms (Dipylidium caninum, Hymenolepis nana, Spirometra erinacei, Echinococcus granulosus),6 spirurids (Spirocerca lupi),7 spirochaetes,8 Babesia canis and Anaplasma platys,9 can also affect canine health. Diseases that are often rampant in communities while less often seen in urban Australia include parvovirus, distemper, bordetella, parainfluenza and transmissible venereal tumours.3 Cats are increasingly being kept as pets throughout Indigenous communities. Many community members believe that cats will keep snakes away and protect the house, so they are highly sought after. Because members of some communities have only recently acquired pet cats, knowledge about handling and caring for them is often lacking and there are stories of community members being bitten and scratched. Zoonotic diseases that can potentially be spread by cats include toxoplasmosis and cat scratch fever, which are a major risk particularly to immunocompromised people. They can also carry parasites, including roundworms (Toxocara cati, Toxascaris leonina), hookworms (Ancylostoma tubaeforme), ancanthocephalans (Oncicola spp.), spirurids (Physaloptera praeputialis), tapeworms (Spirometra erinacei) and fleas (Ctenocephalides felis).6 Cats can also have a major effect on the local native fauna through predation. It is important to determine and recognise the increased numbers of animals in remote Indigenous communities because of the potential contribution to human and animal health. This retrospective study was performed by Aboriginal Community Veterinary Services, in conjunction with the Roper Gulf Shire, Victoria Daly Shire, Central
Desert Shire, Katherine Town Council and Minyerri Council to give a representative level of treated dogs and cats in remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory (NT). Materials and methods Scope and data collection A total of 20 communities were visited as part of their biannual animal health programs during the financial year from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. The locations of these communities are shown in Figure 1, but they are not identified by name and will be referred to by number only.10 As part of the health program, a veterinarian and a veterinary nurse travelled to each community and performed a set protocol of treatments on dogs, cats and other domestic or pet animals present in the community. The same protocol was performed in each community and where possible every occupied Indigenous house was visited. All procedures were performed with informed owner consent and an attempt was made to treat every animal present in the community. The types and total numbers of dog and cat treatments were recorded on sheets carried to each house in the community. Population analysis To compare communities of different size, household animal population densities were analysed. The average number of dogs treated per household was calculated, as well as the numbers of euthanased animals, as it was important to compare total numbers of dogs present at the start of the visit. Only the 18 communities in which all houses were visited were included in the calculations. Every animal that the owner could hold was treated and every animal treated received ivermectin. The total numbers of dogs and cats treated were calculated by adding the numbers of ivermectin injections given and the numbers of euthanasias.
Figure 1. Map of 20 Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, visited by Aboriginal Community Veterinary Services from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.10
146
Australian Veterinary Journal Volume 93, No 5, May 2015
© 2015 Australian Veterinary Association
SMALL ANIMALS 350
Number of dogs
250 200
Results
150 100 50 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Community number
Figure 2. Total numbers of dogs treated in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.
The number of female breeders was determined by adding the numbers of females that were desexed plus the numbers that were given female contraceptives. The percentage of female breeders was divided by the total dog or cat population at the beginning of the visit (ivermectin injections plus numbers of euthanasias). As only puppies under 20 weeks of age received vaccinations, the average number of adult dogs treated for parasites was calculated by subtracting the number of vaccinations given from the number of ivermectin injections. The puppy percentage of total dog population was determined by dividing the number of vaccinations by the total population. The presence of other species was noted but their numbers were not recorded. The data were compared with the average Australian household dog and cat population densities using the Australian Companion Animal Council’s (ACAC) 2009 pet population data11 and
Summary of visits performed A total of 853 houses were visited in the 20 communities; 2099 dogs and 170 cats were treated (Figures 1, 2). On average there were 44 occupied Aboriginal households in communities 1–18 (range 7–108); with 54 in community 19, and 4 in community 20 (Table 1).
SMALL ANIMALS
household numbers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2006–07 Report on Family Characteristics and Transitions.12
300
The individual data for each community is shown in Tables S1 and S2 which are available in the online version of this article. The total numbers of dogs and cats treated in the area are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Of the dogs, 1976 were treated for parasites, 101 were spayed, 109 were castrated, 272 were vaccinated, 275 were given contraceptive injections and 123 were euthanased (Table 1). Of the cats, 135 were treated for parasites, 18 were spayed, 13 were castrated, 19 were given contraceptive injections and 35 were euthanased. All communities had dogs and 75% of the communities had cats. Other species kept as pets in these remote Indigenous communities included horses, donkeys, cattle, buffalo, pigs and birds.
Results of dog treatments for each community The results of the dog treatments for each community are shown in Table 1. In summary, for communities 1–18, the average number of dogs treated per 10 households was 24.4 (range 13.3–41.4) and the number of adult dogs treated per household was 18.6 (range 8.6–28.4). The percentage of breeding females was 18.6 (range 9.1–34.6) and the percentage of puppies was 17.6 (range 1.3–57.1) (Table 1).
Table 1. Numbers of dogs and veterinary treatments performed in 20 Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, visited from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
No. of treatments Ivermectin Female contraceptive Vaccination Spay Castration Euthanasia No. of animals No. of dogs on arrivala No. of puppiesb Puppies (%) of remaining populationc No. of female breedersd Female breeders (%) of remaining populationc
Total
Mean per community
SE
Median
SD
Range
1976 275 272 101 109 123
98.8 13.8 13.6 5.1 5.5 6.2
20.2 2.9 3.1 1.3 1.2 1.7
75.5 8.5 7.5 2.5 4.5 2.0
90.4 13.0 13.9 5.8 5.5 7.6
10–302 0–42 1–51 0–17 0–17 0–25
2099 272
105.0 13.6 17.6 18.8 18.6
21.2 3.1 3.3 3.6 1.7
76.5 7.5 11.5 15.0 16.6
94.7 13.9 14.7 16.2 7.6
10–304 1–51 1.25–57.1 1–50 9.1–34.6
376
SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error. a Calculated from no. of dogs given ivermectin and the number of dogs euthanased. b Calculated from no. of vaccinations given. c Excluding those euthanased. d Calculated from no. of female contraceptives given and no. of spays. © 2015 Australian Veterinary Association
Australian Veterinary Journal Volume 93, No 5, May 2015
147
SMALL ANIMALS
SMALL ANIMALS
Table 2. Numbers of cats and veterinary treatments performed in 20 Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, visited from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
No. of treatments Ivermectin Female contraceptive Spay Castration Euthanasia No. of animals No. of cats on arrivala No. of female breedersb Female breeders (%)c
Total
Mean per community
SE
Median
SD
Range
135 19 18 13 35
6.75 0.95 0.9 0.65 1.75
2.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.9
3 0 0 0 0
9.3 1.7 1.9 1.6 4.2
0–34 0–5 0–6 0–6 0–18
170 37
8.5 1.85 18.8
2.4 0.7 6.1
3.0 0 0
10.9 3.2 27.4
0–37 0–11 0–100
SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error. a Calculated from no. of cats given ivermectin and no. of cats euthanased. b Calculated from female contraceptives given and no. of spays. c Calculated from no. of breeders/no. of ivermectin treatments.
Results of cat treatments for each community The number of cats treated per household and percentage breeding females are summarised in Table 2 and Figure 3. Household numbers of dogs and cats in remote Indigenous NT communities The two incomplete communities were excluded from the calculations. Dog household numbers and percentages and cat household numbers are summarised in Table 3. Discussion Many species of animals are kept as pets in Indigenous communities, with the main species being dogs and cats. The number of dogs in the communities we counted were significantly higher than the average of Australia’s 8.1 million households,12 being on average 6.3-fold higher per household. However, cat household numbers were roughly equivalent with average Australian cat household numbers. Other species kept as pets in these remote Indigenous communities included horses, donkeys, cattle, buffalo, pigs and birds. According to data combined from the ACAC and the ABS, in 2009 the average Australian household pet numbers were 3.9 dogs and 2.9 cats per 10 households.11,12 Average household dog numbers in
remote Indigenous NT communities were higher than the average household dog numbers in Australia, but the average household cat numbers were similar. According to the ACAC, in Australia in 2009, there were 3.41 million dogs and 2.31 million cats owned, which equated to an average of 16 dogs and 11 cats for every 100 people,11 which is one of the highest levels of pet ownership in the world.11 The ABS results in 2006 puts the average Aboriginal household size in remote to very remote communities between 3.9 and 4.9 persons per household.13 Assuming that the population numbers in the visted Indigenous communities were the same as those reported by the ABS for rural and remote communities, our data suggested that pet ownership in remote Indigenous communities is 50–62 dogs for every 100 Indigenous people, and 7–9 cats for every 100 Indigenous people. These data show that dog ownership per person is more than 3-fold higher in Indigenous communities the Australian average Australia. Cat ownership, however, is slightly lower per person than the Australia average. It is important to note that our data showed that in the communities we visited, dog household numbers were lower than the 7–10 dogs per household that is often quoted by non-residents or nonIndigenous people working in remote Indigenous communities. Many factors contribute to the high dog populations. Because of the remote location of many Indigenous communities, it can be difficult for owners to obtain timely veterinary treatments and services such as desexing.
Table 3. Household dog and cat populations in 18 remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Number
Total
Mean
Occupied Aboriginal households Dogs treated per 10 households Adult dogs treated per 10 households Cats treated per 10 households
795
44.2 24.36 18.56 3.43
Range
13.3–41.1 8.6–28.4 0–28.57
SD
Median
95% CI
8.17 6.47 6.77
25.99 18.98 0.92
20.59–28.14 15.57–21.55 0.30–6.56
CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation.
148
Australian Veterinary Journal Volume 93, No 5, May 2015
© 2015 Australian Veterinary Association
40
Number of cats
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Community number
Figure 3. Total numbers of cats treated in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.
The relatively poor socioeconomic situation in many Indigenous communities because of high unemployment/underemployment and a general lack of disposable income leads to a lack of cash flow. Many residents of Indigenous communities find it too expensive to utilise veterinary services and cannot afford services such as desexing. Because of this, many animals’ illnesses and injuries go untreated, many animals remain unvaccinated and are left to breed unchecked. This results in a higher incidence of preventable diseases in the community, higher incidence of chronic injuries and a higher level of unwanted animal births. This can be mitigated by regular animal health programs provided by councils, non-government organisations, state/territory governments or federal government departments that can help community members who cannot afford many of these treatments. Ideally, veterinary visits should be performed regularly and cover essential services such as parasite control, birth control, essential health treatments and euthanasia. These veterinary visits are crucially important to reduce zoonotic parasite levels and hence help prevent the transmission of these organisms to people.5 Houses may have poor fencing or no fencing at all, so large numbers of dogs can roam throughout the community. This means that dogs are free to interact when the females are in season and more likely to breed, resulting in higher dog populations. Anecdotally, in communities where backyard systems with good fencing have been used, the dog populations appear to be lower. These designs should be further investigated to determine their effectiveness and value in supplying all communities. Some communities in northern Australia have a ‘Dog Dreaming’ in which the dog is considered to be a totem animal.1 In these communities, many people are accepting of medical treatments for their dogs, but are often reluctant to proceed with surgery or euthanasia because the dog is seen as sacred. As a result, contraceptive programs are more accepted than surgical interventions. In other communities, an individual dog may be referred to as the ‘Spirit’ dog1 and that animal is not to be desexed and so will be a source of further puppies in the community. In these cases, the owners may even be reluctant for this particular animal to undergo any form of treatment. © 2015 Australian Veterinary Association
Finally, traditional and non-traditional hunting is practiced by many members of remote communities.1 In some of these hunting households, members desire large numbers of dogs to help catch the prey. However, requests to desex these hunting animals can vary between communities. In some communities, members believe that desexing removes the hunting spirit and ability of the dogs, so they will keep their dogs (especially males) entire. In other communities, members will actively seek for their hunting dogs to be desexed, as community members believe that the hormones often distract the dogs from their task. Education can help allay any concerns owners may have.
SMALL ANIMALS
SMALL ANIMALS
Communal beliefs also exist about keeping cats to control snakes around houses. Community animal management Community animal management is needed to help set desirable levels for dog populations within these Indigenous communities and to manage other issues such as dangerous dogs, stray animals, roaming animals and communal environmental health. Community members of councils have helped to set policies within their shire and some have created a two-dog policy for households. However, enforcing it has often been difficult and most shires and councils do not have the funds or means to enforce the laws and employ an animal control officer. When two-dog policies have been enacted and enforced, people will often hide animals and subsequently these animals do not get treated. Without treatment, these animals often become sources of puppies and diseases. It is more practical to encourage people to seek treatments for their animals and hence modify animal populations through this method. A set population of dogs can be a desirable benchmark as a long-term goal rather than a short-term gain. Having a dog control officer can be effective in other aspects of dog management such as assisting in veterinary visits, enforcing laws regarding roaming of dogs, dangerous dogs and stray animals, euthanasing sick and injured animals and conducting pet education programs and dog training programs. To help reach desirable dog population levels, many councils have adopted animal health programs to provide services for their constituents. This is a cost-effective measure for maintaining animal health, in reducing animal numbers and in focusing on the needs of the animals’ owners. It is ideal for these programs to run at least biannually to triennially. Finally, one of the more frustrating, but more significant reasons contributing to animal overpopulation is the lack of funding allocated to animal health, control and welfare programs necessary to reach desirable population levels.
Conclusions It is important to recognise the increased numbers of animals in remote Indigenous communities of northern Australia, as excessively large populations can be a negative contributor to human and animal health. Dog populations in remote Indigenous communities are high compared with Australian Veterinary Journal Volume 93, No 5, May 2015
149
SMALL ANIMALS
SMALL ANIMALS
the average Australian household, but not nearly as high as is often quoted. Many other species, particularly cats, are kept as pets in Indigenous communities. Household cat populations are approximately the same as the Australian average. Continuing regular veterinary Indigenous community animal health programs can help address the issues of high animal populations and the poor health and welfare of animals in remote Indigenous communities. The other elements that should be addressed include improving house and yard design, increasing education regarding animal health, care and welfare and increasing the training and presence of health and animal professionals. Ongoing monitoring of animal numbers and states of health in these communities is vital because high pet population densities can increase disease levels and zoonotic risks. It is important that these programs are properly budgeted, with funding allocated to ensure that regularity is achieved. Acknowledgments We thank all shires and communities involved in this study and we acknowledge the traditional land owners of each community involved. We also thank Kieren McCosker for his assistance with the mapping. References 1. Smith BP, Litchfield CA. A review of the relationship between Indigenous Australians, dingoes (Canis dingo) and domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anthrozoös 2009;22:111–128. 2. Senior K, Chenhall R, McRae-Williams E et al. Dogs and people in Aboriginal communities: Exploring the relationship within the context of the social determinants of health. Environ Health 2006;6:39–46. 3. Bradbury I, Corlette S. Dog health program in Numbulwar, a remote aboriginal community in East Arnhem Land. Aust Vet J 2006;84:317–320. 4. Gaskin S, Bentham R, Cromar N et al. The zoonotic potential of dogs in Aboriginal communities in Central Australia. Environ Health 2007;7:36–45. 5. Raw L. Human Health in relation to pets in urban and Indigenous communities. In: Canyon R, Speare R, editors. Rural and remote environmental health I. Australasian College of Tropical Medicine, Brisbane, 2001;20–26.
150
Australian Veterinary Journal Volume 93, No 5, May 2015
6. Thompson RCA, Meloni BP, Hopkins RM et al. Observations on the endo- and ecto-parasites affecting dogs and cats in Aboriginal communities in the northwest of Western Australia. Aust Vet J 1993;70:268–270. 7. Barton MA, McEwan DR. Spirurid nematodes in dogs and cats from central Australia. Aust Vet J 1993;70:270. 8. Lee JL, Hampson DJ. The prevalence of intestinal spirochaetes in dogs. Aust Vet J 1996;74:466–467. 9. Brown GK, Canfield PJ, Dunstan RH et al. Detection of Anaplasma platys and Babesia canis vogeli and their impact on platelet numbers in free roaming dogs associated with remote Aboriginal communities in Australia. Aust Vet J 2006;84:321–325. 10. Geoscience Australia. Gazeteer of Australia place name search. Available at: http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name. Accessed December 2010. 11. Australian Companion Animal Council. Contribution of the pet care industry to the Australian economy. 7th edn. Victoria, 2010. http://www.acac.org.au/pdf/ ACAC%20Report%200810_sm.pdf. Accessed December 2010. 12. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Family characteristics and transitions, Australia, 2006–2007. Cat. no. 4442.0. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4442.0. Accessed December 2010. 13. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Population characteristics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006. Cat. no. 4713.0. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ [email protected]/ProductsbyCatalogue/2B3D3A062FF56BC1CA256DCE007FBFFA?OpenDo cument. Accessed December 2010.
Supporting information Additional supporting information can be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s website: http://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/10.1111/avj.12321/suppinfo. Table S1. Number of dogs and veterinary treatments performed in each Indigenous community in the Northern Territory, Australia, visited by the Aboriginal Community Veterinary Services from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. Table S2. Number of cats and veterinary treatments performed in each Indigenous community in the Northern Territory, Australia, visited by the Aboriginal Community Veterinary Services from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. (Accepted for publication 30 April 2013)
© 2015 Australian Veterinary Association
Objective To determine the population of owned dogs and cats in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory (NT), and compare the data with those for the average Australian household. Methods Results of 20 Indigenous community animal health programs were analysed for species present and dog and cat numbers. The female breeding and puppy populations were also identified. Results The average dog population density was significantly higher than the average Australian household, with an average of 24.4 dogs per 10 households, but the average cat population density was similar (3.3 cats per 10 households). Numbers of other species were not determined. The average percentage of puppies in these communities was 17.6% of the treated canine population, the average percentage of breeding canine females was 18.6% of the treated canine population, and the average percentage of breeding feline females was 19.7% of the total feline population. Conclusions Dog populations in NT Indigenous communities were at least 6.3-fold higher per household compared with data for the rest of Australia. Cat populations per household were similar to the overall population. Factors contributing to the relatively high dog populations in remote Indigenous communities include a lack of veterinary presence, community remoteness, poor socioeconomic factors, poor house and yard designs, cultural reasons, communal beliefs, lack of community animal management and a lack of funding. We believe that animal health programs are an important way of addressing a number of these issues. Other elements that should be addressed include improving house and yard design, increasing education regarding animal health, care and welfare, and increasing the training and presence of health and animal professionals. Keywords Aboriginal culture; cats; dogs; Indigenous communities; Northern Territory; population studies Abbreviations ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics; ACAC, Australian Companion Animal Council; NT, Northern Territory Aust Vet J 2015;93;145–150
D
doi: 10.1111/avj.12321
ogs are an integral part of Aboriginal culture and society, being kept for companionship, hunting, protection, warmth, sentimentality and in some instances because they are
*Corresponding author. Aboriginal Community Veterinary Services. Katherine, Northern Territory, Australia; [email protected] © 2015 Australian Veterinary Association
SMALL ANIMALS
SMALL ANIMALS
considered to be are considered ‘sacred’.1,2 Contrary to popular belief, the majority of dogs in Indigenous communities are not strays, but are ‘owned’ by people and many owners have a true sense of care for their animals. Unfortunately, dog numbers in remote Indigenous communities of northern Australia are often excessive because of a high proportion of fertile dogs, high numbers of roaming animals, leading to increased chance of breeding, and/or a lack of development or enforcement of council by-laws. There have only been limited peer-reviewed case studies that have looked at dog numbers in individual communities in Australia. One study showed that the dog numbers were high for the targeted community,3 but that study had low external validity for other unrelated remote Indigenous communities. Both the large populations of dogs and their tendency to roam in remote Indigenous communities in Australia are concerning, as these large populations can influence both animal and human health. High dog populations can lead to greater interactions between animals and people, resulting in injuries and disease that may affect the health of people in these communities.4,5 Local news stories report that dogs have been responsible for many serious injuries in remote Indigenous communities, in some cases resulting in human deaths. Dogs in communities can also negatively affect other species of animals and there are many anecdotal reports of dogs attacking horses, livestock, cats and poultry. Roaming dogs can increase risks to human safety. There have been reports of dogs wandering in front of vehicles causing the vehicles, to veer off roads, dogs being hit by cars, and dogs wandering onto airfields and interfering with aircraft takeoff and landing. Dogs can also affect people’s health and wellbeing by stealing food resources, spreading garbage, increasing faecal pollution, causing noise pollution and spreading zoonotic parasites (e.g. Giardia, scabies, roundworms, hookworms and tapeworms).4–6 One of the key factors in the spread of zoonotic diseases from animals to humans is the number of animals in and around the home environment.5 This is a major concern in remote Indigenous communities because large dog populations often roam from house to house. Increased numbers of roaming dogs can also affect the welfare of the dogs themselves. There is increased competition for food, increased frequency of fights, potential for large outbreaks of disease and dangerous pack behaviour. Anecdotally, there are higher levels of parasites and Australian Veterinary Journal Volume 93, No 5, May 2015
145
SMALL ANIMALS
SMALL ANIMALS
diseases in dogs in Indigenous communities when compared with urban Australia. External parasites such as the brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus sanguineus), cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis), stickfast flea (Echidnophaga gallinacea), biting lice (Heterodoxus spiniger), demodectic mite (Demodex canis) and sarcoptic mite (Sarcoptes scabiei) commonly affect dogs in remote Indigenous communities and can negatively affect their health. Internal parasites, including hookworms (Ancylostoma caninum), Giardia sp., heartworms (Dirofilaria immitis), roundworms (Toxocara canis), whipworms (Trichuris vulpis), tapeworms (Dipylidium caninum, Hymenolepis nana, Spirometra erinacei, Echinococcus granulosus),6 spirurids (Spirocerca lupi),7 spirochaetes,8 Babesia canis and Anaplasma platys,9 can also affect canine health. Diseases that are often rampant in communities while less often seen in urban Australia include parvovirus, distemper, bordetella, parainfluenza and transmissible venereal tumours.3 Cats are increasingly being kept as pets throughout Indigenous communities. Many community members believe that cats will keep snakes away and protect the house, so they are highly sought after. Because members of some communities have only recently acquired pet cats, knowledge about handling and caring for them is often lacking and there are stories of community members being bitten and scratched. Zoonotic diseases that can potentially be spread by cats include toxoplasmosis and cat scratch fever, which are a major risk particularly to immunocompromised people. They can also carry parasites, including roundworms (Toxocara cati, Toxascaris leonina), hookworms (Ancylostoma tubaeforme), ancanthocephalans (Oncicola spp.), spirurids (Physaloptera praeputialis), tapeworms (Spirometra erinacei) and fleas (Ctenocephalides felis).6 Cats can also have a major effect on the local native fauna through predation. It is important to determine and recognise the increased numbers of animals in remote Indigenous communities because of the potential contribution to human and animal health. This retrospective study was performed by Aboriginal Community Veterinary Services, in conjunction with the Roper Gulf Shire, Victoria Daly Shire, Central
Desert Shire, Katherine Town Council and Minyerri Council to give a representative level of treated dogs and cats in remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory (NT). Materials and methods Scope and data collection A total of 20 communities were visited as part of their biannual animal health programs during the financial year from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. The locations of these communities are shown in Figure 1, but they are not identified by name and will be referred to by number only.10 As part of the health program, a veterinarian and a veterinary nurse travelled to each community and performed a set protocol of treatments on dogs, cats and other domestic or pet animals present in the community. The same protocol was performed in each community and where possible every occupied Indigenous house was visited. All procedures were performed with informed owner consent and an attempt was made to treat every animal present in the community. The types and total numbers of dog and cat treatments were recorded on sheets carried to each house in the community. Population analysis To compare communities of different size, household animal population densities were analysed. The average number of dogs treated per household was calculated, as well as the numbers of euthanased animals, as it was important to compare total numbers of dogs present at the start of the visit. Only the 18 communities in which all houses were visited were included in the calculations. Every animal that the owner could hold was treated and every animal treated received ivermectin. The total numbers of dogs and cats treated were calculated by adding the numbers of ivermectin injections given and the numbers of euthanasias.
Figure 1. Map of 20 Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, visited by Aboriginal Community Veterinary Services from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.10
146
Australian Veterinary Journal Volume 93, No 5, May 2015
© 2015 Australian Veterinary Association
SMALL ANIMALS 350
Number of dogs
250 200
Results
150 100 50 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Community number
Figure 2. Total numbers of dogs treated in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.
The number of female breeders was determined by adding the numbers of females that were desexed plus the numbers that were given female contraceptives. The percentage of female breeders was divided by the total dog or cat population at the beginning of the visit (ivermectin injections plus numbers of euthanasias). As only puppies under 20 weeks of age received vaccinations, the average number of adult dogs treated for parasites was calculated by subtracting the number of vaccinations given from the number of ivermectin injections. The puppy percentage of total dog population was determined by dividing the number of vaccinations by the total population. The presence of other species was noted but their numbers were not recorded. The data were compared with the average Australian household dog and cat population densities using the Australian Companion Animal Council’s (ACAC) 2009 pet population data11 and
Summary of visits performed A total of 853 houses were visited in the 20 communities; 2099 dogs and 170 cats were treated (Figures 1, 2). On average there were 44 occupied Aboriginal households in communities 1–18 (range 7–108); with 54 in community 19, and 4 in community 20 (Table 1).
SMALL ANIMALS
household numbers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2006–07 Report on Family Characteristics and Transitions.12
300
The individual data for each community is shown in Tables S1 and S2 which are available in the online version of this article. The total numbers of dogs and cats treated in the area are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Of the dogs, 1976 were treated for parasites, 101 were spayed, 109 were castrated, 272 were vaccinated, 275 were given contraceptive injections and 123 were euthanased (Table 1). Of the cats, 135 were treated for parasites, 18 were spayed, 13 were castrated, 19 were given contraceptive injections and 35 were euthanased. All communities had dogs and 75% of the communities had cats. Other species kept as pets in these remote Indigenous communities included horses, donkeys, cattle, buffalo, pigs and birds.
Results of dog treatments for each community The results of the dog treatments for each community are shown in Table 1. In summary, for communities 1–18, the average number of dogs treated per 10 households was 24.4 (range 13.3–41.4) and the number of adult dogs treated per household was 18.6 (range 8.6–28.4). The percentage of breeding females was 18.6 (range 9.1–34.6) and the percentage of puppies was 17.6 (range 1.3–57.1) (Table 1).
Table 1. Numbers of dogs and veterinary treatments performed in 20 Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, visited from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
No. of treatments Ivermectin Female contraceptive Vaccination Spay Castration Euthanasia No. of animals No. of dogs on arrivala No. of puppiesb Puppies (%) of remaining populationc No. of female breedersd Female breeders (%) of remaining populationc
Total
Mean per community
SE
Median
SD
Range
1976 275 272 101 109 123
98.8 13.8 13.6 5.1 5.5 6.2
20.2 2.9 3.1 1.3 1.2 1.7
75.5 8.5 7.5 2.5 4.5 2.0
90.4 13.0 13.9 5.8 5.5 7.6
10–302 0–42 1–51 0–17 0–17 0–25
2099 272
105.0 13.6 17.6 18.8 18.6
21.2 3.1 3.3 3.6 1.7
76.5 7.5 11.5 15.0 16.6
94.7 13.9 14.7 16.2 7.6
10–304 1–51 1.25–57.1 1–50 9.1–34.6
376
SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error. a Calculated from no. of dogs given ivermectin and the number of dogs euthanased. b Calculated from no. of vaccinations given. c Excluding those euthanased. d Calculated from no. of female contraceptives given and no. of spays. © 2015 Australian Veterinary Association
Australian Veterinary Journal Volume 93, No 5, May 2015
147
SMALL ANIMALS
SMALL ANIMALS
Table 2. Numbers of cats and veterinary treatments performed in 20 Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, visited from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
No. of treatments Ivermectin Female contraceptive Spay Castration Euthanasia No. of animals No. of cats on arrivala No. of female breedersb Female breeders (%)c
Total
Mean per community
SE
Median
SD
Range
135 19 18 13 35
6.75 0.95 0.9 0.65 1.75
2.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.9
3 0 0 0 0
9.3 1.7 1.9 1.6 4.2
0–34 0–5 0–6 0–6 0–18
170 37
8.5 1.85 18.8
2.4 0.7 6.1
3.0 0 0
10.9 3.2 27.4
0–37 0–11 0–100
SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error. a Calculated from no. of cats given ivermectin and no. of cats euthanased. b Calculated from female contraceptives given and no. of spays. c Calculated from no. of breeders/no. of ivermectin treatments.
Results of cat treatments for each community The number of cats treated per household and percentage breeding females are summarised in Table 2 and Figure 3. Household numbers of dogs and cats in remote Indigenous NT communities The two incomplete communities were excluded from the calculations. Dog household numbers and percentages and cat household numbers are summarised in Table 3. Discussion Many species of animals are kept as pets in Indigenous communities, with the main species being dogs and cats. The number of dogs in the communities we counted were significantly higher than the average of Australia’s 8.1 million households,12 being on average 6.3-fold higher per household. However, cat household numbers were roughly equivalent with average Australian cat household numbers. Other species kept as pets in these remote Indigenous communities included horses, donkeys, cattle, buffalo, pigs and birds. According to data combined from the ACAC and the ABS, in 2009 the average Australian household pet numbers were 3.9 dogs and 2.9 cats per 10 households.11,12 Average household dog numbers in
remote Indigenous NT communities were higher than the average household dog numbers in Australia, but the average household cat numbers were similar. According to the ACAC, in Australia in 2009, there were 3.41 million dogs and 2.31 million cats owned, which equated to an average of 16 dogs and 11 cats for every 100 people,11 which is one of the highest levels of pet ownership in the world.11 The ABS results in 2006 puts the average Aboriginal household size in remote to very remote communities between 3.9 and 4.9 persons per household.13 Assuming that the population numbers in the visted Indigenous communities were the same as those reported by the ABS for rural and remote communities, our data suggested that pet ownership in remote Indigenous communities is 50–62 dogs for every 100 Indigenous people, and 7–9 cats for every 100 Indigenous people. These data show that dog ownership per person is more than 3-fold higher in Indigenous communities the Australian average Australia. Cat ownership, however, is slightly lower per person than the Australia average. It is important to note that our data showed that in the communities we visited, dog household numbers were lower than the 7–10 dogs per household that is often quoted by non-residents or nonIndigenous people working in remote Indigenous communities. Many factors contribute to the high dog populations. Because of the remote location of many Indigenous communities, it can be difficult for owners to obtain timely veterinary treatments and services such as desexing.
Table 3. Household dog and cat populations in 18 remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009
Number
Total
Mean
Occupied Aboriginal households Dogs treated per 10 households Adult dogs treated per 10 households Cats treated per 10 households
795
44.2 24.36 18.56 3.43
Range
13.3–41.1 8.6–28.4 0–28.57
SD
Median
95% CI
8.17 6.47 6.77
25.99 18.98 0.92
20.59–28.14 15.57–21.55 0.30–6.56
CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation.
148
Australian Veterinary Journal Volume 93, No 5, May 2015
© 2015 Australian Veterinary Association
40
Number of cats
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Community number
Figure 3. Total numbers of cats treated in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, Australia from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.
The relatively poor socioeconomic situation in many Indigenous communities because of high unemployment/underemployment and a general lack of disposable income leads to a lack of cash flow. Many residents of Indigenous communities find it too expensive to utilise veterinary services and cannot afford services such as desexing. Because of this, many animals’ illnesses and injuries go untreated, many animals remain unvaccinated and are left to breed unchecked. This results in a higher incidence of preventable diseases in the community, higher incidence of chronic injuries and a higher level of unwanted animal births. This can be mitigated by regular animal health programs provided by councils, non-government organisations, state/territory governments or federal government departments that can help community members who cannot afford many of these treatments. Ideally, veterinary visits should be performed regularly and cover essential services such as parasite control, birth control, essential health treatments and euthanasia. These veterinary visits are crucially important to reduce zoonotic parasite levels and hence help prevent the transmission of these organisms to people.5 Houses may have poor fencing or no fencing at all, so large numbers of dogs can roam throughout the community. This means that dogs are free to interact when the females are in season and more likely to breed, resulting in higher dog populations. Anecdotally, in communities where backyard systems with good fencing have been used, the dog populations appear to be lower. These designs should be further investigated to determine their effectiveness and value in supplying all communities. Some communities in northern Australia have a ‘Dog Dreaming’ in which the dog is considered to be a totem animal.1 In these communities, many people are accepting of medical treatments for their dogs, but are often reluctant to proceed with surgery or euthanasia because the dog is seen as sacred. As a result, contraceptive programs are more accepted than surgical interventions. In other communities, an individual dog may be referred to as the ‘Spirit’ dog1 and that animal is not to be desexed and so will be a source of further puppies in the community. In these cases, the owners may even be reluctant for this particular animal to undergo any form of treatment. © 2015 Australian Veterinary Association
Finally, traditional and non-traditional hunting is practiced by many members of remote communities.1 In some of these hunting households, members desire large numbers of dogs to help catch the prey. However, requests to desex these hunting animals can vary between communities. In some communities, members believe that desexing removes the hunting spirit and ability of the dogs, so they will keep their dogs (especially males) entire. In other communities, members will actively seek for their hunting dogs to be desexed, as community members believe that the hormones often distract the dogs from their task. Education can help allay any concerns owners may have.
SMALL ANIMALS
SMALL ANIMALS
Communal beliefs also exist about keeping cats to control snakes around houses. Community animal management Community animal management is needed to help set desirable levels for dog populations within these Indigenous communities and to manage other issues such as dangerous dogs, stray animals, roaming animals and communal environmental health. Community members of councils have helped to set policies within their shire and some have created a two-dog policy for households. However, enforcing it has often been difficult and most shires and councils do not have the funds or means to enforce the laws and employ an animal control officer. When two-dog policies have been enacted and enforced, people will often hide animals and subsequently these animals do not get treated. Without treatment, these animals often become sources of puppies and diseases. It is more practical to encourage people to seek treatments for their animals and hence modify animal populations through this method. A set population of dogs can be a desirable benchmark as a long-term goal rather than a short-term gain. Having a dog control officer can be effective in other aspects of dog management such as assisting in veterinary visits, enforcing laws regarding roaming of dogs, dangerous dogs and stray animals, euthanasing sick and injured animals and conducting pet education programs and dog training programs. To help reach desirable dog population levels, many councils have adopted animal health programs to provide services for their constituents. This is a cost-effective measure for maintaining animal health, in reducing animal numbers and in focusing on the needs of the animals’ owners. It is ideal for these programs to run at least biannually to triennially. Finally, one of the more frustrating, but more significant reasons contributing to animal overpopulation is the lack of funding allocated to animal health, control and welfare programs necessary to reach desirable population levels.
Conclusions It is important to recognise the increased numbers of animals in remote Indigenous communities of northern Australia, as excessively large populations can be a negative contributor to human and animal health. Dog populations in remote Indigenous communities are high compared with Australian Veterinary Journal Volume 93, No 5, May 2015
149
SMALL ANIMALS
SMALL ANIMALS
the average Australian household, but not nearly as high as is often quoted. Many other species, particularly cats, are kept as pets in Indigenous communities. Household cat populations are approximately the same as the Australian average. Continuing regular veterinary Indigenous community animal health programs can help address the issues of high animal populations and the poor health and welfare of animals in remote Indigenous communities. The other elements that should be addressed include improving house and yard design, increasing education regarding animal health, care and welfare and increasing the training and presence of health and animal professionals. Ongoing monitoring of animal numbers and states of health in these communities is vital because high pet population densities can increase disease levels and zoonotic risks. It is important that these programs are properly budgeted, with funding allocated to ensure that regularity is achieved. Acknowledgments We thank all shires and communities involved in this study and we acknowledge the traditional land owners of each community involved. We also thank Kieren McCosker for his assistance with the mapping. References 1. Smith BP, Litchfield CA. A review of the relationship between Indigenous Australians, dingoes (Canis dingo) and domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anthrozoös 2009;22:111–128. 2. Senior K, Chenhall R, McRae-Williams E et al. Dogs and people in Aboriginal communities: Exploring the relationship within the context of the social determinants of health. Environ Health 2006;6:39–46. 3. Bradbury I, Corlette S. Dog health program in Numbulwar, a remote aboriginal community in East Arnhem Land. Aust Vet J 2006;84:317–320. 4. Gaskin S, Bentham R, Cromar N et al. The zoonotic potential of dogs in Aboriginal communities in Central Australia. Environ Health 2007;7:36–45. 5. Raw L. Human Health in relation to pets in urban and Indigenous communities. In: Canyon R, Speare R, editors. Rural and remote environmental health I. Australasian College of Tropical Medicine, Brisbane, 2001;20–26.
150
Australian Veterinary Journal Volume 93, No 5, May 2015
6. Thompson RCA, Meloni BP, Hopkins RM et al. Observations on the endo- and ecto-parasites affecting dogs and cats in Aboriginal communities in the northwest of Western Australia. Aust Vet J 1993;70:268–270. 7. Barton MA, McEwan DR. Spirurid nematodes in dogs and cats from central Australia. Aust Vet J 1993;70:270. 8. Lee JL, Hampson DJ. The prevalence of intestinal spirochaetes in dogs. Aust Vet J 1996;74:466–467. 9. Brown GK, Canfield PJ, Dunstan RH et al. Detection of Anaplasma platys and Babesia canis vogeli and their impact on platelet numbers in free roaming dogs associated with remote Aboriginal communities in Australia. Aust Vet J 2006;84:321–325. 10. Geoscience Australia. Gazeteer of Australia place name search. Available at: http://www.ga.gov.au/place-name. Accessed December 2010. 11. Australian Companion Animal Council. Contribution of the pet care industry to the Australian economy. 7th edn. Victoria, 2010. http://www.acac.org.au/pdf/ ACAC%20Report%200810_sm.pdf. Accessed December 2010. 12. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Family characteristics and transitions, Australia, 2006–2007. Cat. no. 4442.0. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4442.0. Accessed December 2010. 13. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Population characteristics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006. Cat. no. 4713.0. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ [email protected]/ProductsbyCatalogue/2B3D3A062FF56BC1CA256DCE007FBFFA?OpenDo cument. Accessed December 2010.
Supporting information Additional supporting information can be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s website: http://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/10.1111/avj.12321/suppinfo. Table S1. Number of dogs and veterinary treatments performed in each Indigenous community in the Northern Territory, Australia, visited by the Aboriginal Community Veterinary Services from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. Table S2. Number of cats and veterinary treatments performed in each Indigenous community in the Northern Territory, Australia, visited by the Aboriginal Community Veterinary Services from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. (Accepted for publication 30 April 2013)
© 2015 Australian Veterinary Association
