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.