3. Case study: potential disease (rabies) spread between wild
and domestic dogs in northern Australia
Rabies in people is almost invariably fatal. The greatest burden of this
disease is in Africa and Asia, where nearly all cases are attributable
to a bite from a rabid dog (Hampson et al., 2015). Although rabies can
be prevented in people by timely treatment of bite wounds and
administration of post-exposure prophylaxis, vaccination of dog
populations – both owned and unowned – is recognised as the key to
controlling rabies within a One Health framework (Fahrion et al., 2017;
Ward and Brookes, 2021).
During the past few decades, rabies has spread to areas in Southeast
Asia where historically it was not present (especially islands), and
incidence has increased in some areas where rabies was previously
controlled. This (re)emergence of rabies is typified by the spread of
rabies in the eastern islands of Indonesia – including Bali, Flores and
Ambon – increasing the risk of a rabies incursion in northern Australia
(Ward and Brookes, 2021). Dog-mediated rabies has never been reported
from Australia (except for a suspected outbreak in Hobart in 1866−1867)
(Rupprecht et al., 2010). Given a lack of experience with rabies and its
control, the large populations of roaming domestic dogs and wild dogs,
existing disease spread pathways and its remoteness and subsequent
challenges for surveillance, modelling of the spread of rabies in
northern Australia − should an incursion occur − has become a priority
(Sparkes et al., 2015). Models of how rabies might spread within wild
dog populations (Johnstone-Robertson et al., 2017; Gabriele-Rivet et
al., 2021a) and domestic dog populations (Dürr and Ward, 2014; Brookes
et al., 2019) in the Northern Peninsula Area (NPA) of Cape York,
Queensland and on islands in the Torres Strait have been developed.
These models have focused on each population and have generated
information about how rabies might best be controlled; for example in
domestic dog populations in Indigenous communities (Hudson et al.,
2019a, b).
Despite potential interactions between wild and domestic dogs (thewild−domestic interface ; Bombara et al., 2017a, 2017b;
Gabriele-Rivet et al., 2019a; Ward et al., 2021), integrated modelling
of rabies spread between free-roaming domestic dog and wild dog
populations has not been undertaken. Interactions at this interface can
potentially occur via domestic dog forays into bushland areas, wild dogs
attracted to focal points within communities as a food resource (for
example refuse dumps and abattoirs) and through hunting with domestic
dogs in bushland areas (Ward et al., 2021). Here we review research that
has been conducted on free roaming domestic dog populations and wild dog
populations, separately and focused on contact patterns, to inform
disease spread modelling. We further review research that contributes to
the definition of the interface between free-roaming and wild dog
populations, with the aim of identifying research gaps and making
recommendations for further research at the wildlife−domestic interface.