Search

In northern Australia, wild dog populations potentially interact with domestic dogs from remote communities, which would create opportunities for disease transmission at the wild–domestic interface. An example is rabies, in the event of an incursion into northern Australia. However, the likelihood of such wild–domestic interactions is ambiguous. Hybridisation analyses based on 23 microsatellite DNA markers were performed on canine‐origin scats collected in bushland areas around remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Peninsula Area, Queensland. Sufficient DNA was extracted from 6 of 41 scats to assess the percentage of dingo purity. These scats most likely originated from two 'pure' domestic dogs (0% dingo purity), one hybrid (20% dingo purity) and three 'pure' dingoes (92%–98% dingo purity). The two domestic dog samples were collected in the vicinity of communities. The location of two of the dingo‐origin samples provides genetic evidence that dingoes are present in areas close to the communities. The availability of anthropogenic food resources likely creates opportunities for interactions with domestic dogs in the region. The hybrid sample demonstrates the occurrence of antecedent contacts between both populations by means of mating and supports the likelihood of a spatio‐temporal overlap at the wild–domestic interface. This represents the first genetic survey involving a wild dog population of equatorial northern Queensland, with evidence of dingo purity. Our results have implications for potential disease transmission within a priority area for biosecurity in northern Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Free‐roaming domestic dogs in Indigenous communities of northern Australia have the potential to spread diseases at the wild–domestic dog interface. Hunting activities with domestic dogs, commonly practiced in Indigenous communities, also create opportunities for wild–domestic dog interactions in the bush, providing pathways for potential disease spread. Data from a camera‐trap study conducted in remote Indigenous communities of northern Australia were used to explore spatial and seasonal opportunities for interactions between dingoes and unsupervised domestic dogs. For each type of dog, activity indices, based on detection events per camera station with an adjustment for sampling effort, were mapped across the study area and plotted against distance to communities. Unsupervised domestic dogs were mostly active in proximity (<1 km) to the communities. However, there was a noticeable peak of activity further in the bush away from the communities, especially in the wet season, coinciding with areas commonly used for hunting activities. In contrast, the activity of dingoes was more homogeneous within the study area, with a higher peak of activity around the communities during the dry season, and in bush areas distant (>10 km) to communities during the wet season. Overall, our findings suggest that interactions between dingoes and unsupervised community dogs are more likely to occur around the communities, particularly during the dry season, whereas in the wet season, there is increased opportunity for interactions in distant areas in the bush between dingoes and, presumably, hunting dogs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]