Report on Progress Toward Preventing Unwanted Animals in Northern Territory 2009 - Dr Jan Allen Program Manager Animal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC) Abstract The Northern Territory has progressed well in urban areas towards controlling the unwanted pet problem. Urban Territorians attitudes to dogs roles widely differ from the eastern seaboard with a strong emphasis on guarding and hunting. The two major NT cities, Darwin and Alice Springs, have taken significant steps towards encouraging increased owner responsibility. With the establishment of super shires in the territory in July 1 st 2008, animal management has become a core responsibility of the shires. These shires jurisdiction covers the remote and rural areas of the NT. At this stage their solutions to the huge challenge of animal management range from non-existent to exemplary. Animal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC) is a non-government organisation that is playing a key strategic role in developing strategic frameworks for some shires. This includes addressing the overpopulation issue. Introduction The Northern Territory differs enormously to most other Australian states and territories with its sparse population, vast and harsh landscapes and extreme seasons of wet and dry. The expanse of NT is now organised into nine super shires. It is interesting to observe, and as AMRRIC, often participate in the shire s approaches to the challenge of broaching their core legislative responsibilities in delivering animal management programs.. Many shire staff have never been in a remote community before taking up their positions. Remote Indigenous communities are a challenging environment, where social, cultural and economic circumstances contrast to urban situations. The value of companion animals is complex The few urban areas of the NT are each unique in their circumstance. Each city or large NT town has their own set of challenges. This presentation will exhibit the available data on unwanted companion animals in the urban and remote regions of the NT. The term unwanted is more a white fella term. Often Indigenous people do not see too many dogs as an overpopulation problem. Our differing world views result in the need for a sensitively approached program style to achieve positive outcomes for all. This paper will explore the many and varied factors contributing to the situation of too many dogs and unwanted dogs. To set the Territory Scene. To briefly set a perspective of Northern Territory, it has 20% of Australia s landmass with a mere 1% of the population. One third of NT s population are Indigenous and of these people 65% live on remote communities and outstations. More than half of the entire NT population live in Darwin or the close environs of Palmerston City, and Litchfield Shire. 1
Since July 1 2008 the nine new NT super shires have been fully operational under the local government reform. Status in Urban Areas Urban councils operate under the Animal Welfare Act NT with local (Animal Control) By-Laws superimposed. Urban dogs in the Top End have roles as hunters, protectors and companions. In the hunting fraternity there is a strong following to keep dogs, both male and female, entire for breeding purposes and to maintain their hunting ability. As a consequence there is an overabundance of unwanted crossbred puppies bred with Sharp Pei, mastiff, Bull Arab, pit bull, etc. Local veterinarian, Stephen Cutter, claims that if hunting breeds were not allowed in the territory, the number of unwanted pups in the local shelters would be reduced by 80%. There is a high presentation of dog attack victims in local vet clinics. And fighting breeds are often implicated in these attacks. Darwin City Council (DCC) introduced new by-laws for pet owners that came into effect on 1st July 2008. The laws make it compulsory for all cats and dogs to be registered annually and microchipped. At this stage the microchipping is not enforced but voluntary compliance is encouraged with regular low cost public microchipping days and compulsory microchipping on release from the pound. The new By Laws include declaring and categorising dangerous dogs into one of three categories with a fencing compliance included. The issue of dangerous dog breeds have not been addressed. This last financial year 9097 dogs (a reduction by 3-400 since last year) were registered with 6683 desexed (see Table 1). This is the inaugural year of cat registration with 974 registered and 834 (85%) desexed. According to Jeff Borella, DCC, these figures reflect positively the community attitude to responsible pet ownership. Under the By-Laws, owners can keep two registered cats on one property. A licence is required from Council to keep more than two cats on your property.. The new $1.7 million Darwin City Council Animal Pound was opened in August 2008. It has been designed with contemporary environmentally responsible power and waste management systems providing a higher level of comfort for impounded animals such as cooling for cats and larger individual enclosures for dogs. There is a veterinary treatment area. The new facility has room for 30 dogs and 30 cats. The DCC pound has processed 1014 dogs and 418 cats in the past year. Of the dogs, 25% were euthanased, 55% returned to their owners and 20% rehomed by local animal shelters, PAWS (18%) and RSPCA Darwin (2%). 80% of the cats were euthanased. The council has 6-8 cat traps for hire to the public. Palmerston is the growth city adjacent to Darwin, with a rapidly expanding population of about 25,000 at this stage. Palmerston dog statistics are included in Table 1. Palmerston animal management By-laws commenced in July 1999. Cat and dog micro-chipping is not compulsory in the City of Palmerston. Currently there are no By-laws relating to cats. The City of Palmerston takes every effort within the circumstances to return lost dogs to their owners, to educate owners in ensuring dogs are effectively confined to their properties and to understand and comply with the animal management By-laws. In the figures shown there has been 2
a reduction of animals released to owners. This may be the result of several factors including a high human population turnover locally (due to a high number of defence staff and family movements, short term and seasonal employment contracts, and loss of young people to other centres), increased impounding and recovery fee charges and owner-pet bond. Alice Springs Partly as a result of several serious or fatal dog attacks in 2008, the Animal Management By-Laws that govern pet ownership in Alice Springs were re-written to include important new measures for ensuring happy and healthy communities. Some key changes include strict new penalties for specific offences (dogs at large, barking, menacing, etc). Fines have been increased and owners of offending dogs may be issued with an on-the-spot fine. Registration and microchipping of cats is mandatory in Alice Springs. It is an offence to keep three or more cats, or to allow a cat to breed, without a cat breeder s licence. Tangentyere Council s jurisdiction covers the eighteen aboriginal town camps of Alice Springs. The Alice Springs Town Council (ASTC) and Tangentyere Council undertook a partnership in July 2008 working on Animal Control in Town Camps. ASTC employs 8 rangers; two of these patrol the town camps. The goal of the program was normalisation of the Town Camps, that is, bringing the AS Town Camps into line with the Alice Springs By-laws (including a two dogs per household policy). The July 2009 Report states The program can be viewed as a success to date. Figures show 469 dogs were removed ( 16 dogs were removed from one residence on a single occasion ), 171 dogs registered and the relationship between residents and rangers has greatly improved. Concerns for the future include a lack of funding to continue the program and the method of desexing in the program was not permanent (chemical not surgical). The ASTC has a contractual and 40 year lease agreement with the RSPCA Central Australia Inc. who provide the pound and shelter for unwanted animals from Alice Springs, the AS Town Camps and Indigenous communities of the surrounding MacDonnell Shire. From April 2008 till March 2009, 823 dogs and pups were handed in. 130 of these were camp dogs and pups. Of 404 cats and kittens, there were 186 ferals. The ASTC brought in 572 dogs, 179 pups, 164 cats and 26 kittens. 111 cats and kittens were feral and 401 dogs and pups were camp dogs from the AS Town Camps. A new shelter and pound are currently under construction adjacent to the pre-existing facilities. Table 1. Statistics for stray and abandoned animals, numbers re-homed and euthanased in pounds and shelters in the NT from July 2008 June 2009 Town/City No dogs registered No of dogs No of dogs Numbers impounded Euthanased re-homed Darwin Council 9097(6683 desexed) 1014 25% 55% to their owners and 20% rehomed Palmerston 5521 766 217 433 to their owners and 126 rehomed Katherine. 318 174. 3
RSPCA, Alice Springs RSPCA, Darwin 1574 dogs 49% 51% 795 dogs 570 cats 266dogs 212 cats 545dogs 301cats NT Animal Welfare Organisations RSPCA Central Australia, RSPCA Darwin and PAWS, Darwin are not-for-profit NT organisations that perform an excellent service for animal welfare and public educationfor many communities. RSPCA Darwin is a large facility. Their statistics show a very slight reduction in the number of strays brought in between 2007 and 2008. However, the number of owner surrenders has increased possibly the result of similar circumstances previously mentioned in the Palmerston Council area. PAWS is a recently established facility run by The Ark Animal Hospital, Darwin. It has rehomed 213 dogs from both Palmerston and Darwin City Council pounds in the past 15 months. They also provide a shelter for impounded dogs from the Litchfield Shire. PAWS has developed an effective screening process of animals and potential new owners with a solid follow-up service. There are many community initiatives, for example Waggy Tails Day on October 9 th, organised throughout the year by these 3 organisations to promote public awareness of responsible pet ownership. Status in Rural and Remote Areas The unwanted dog situation in rural and remote areas of the Northern Territory contrasts greatly with the urban one. Settlements in these remote areas are mainly Indigenous communities which have harsh climate and vast distances between them. Often communities are isolated throughout the wet season by impassable roads. Community dogs (more commonly called camp dogs) are valued as hunters, protectors, companions and members of the family. In some regions of NT, there are specific dog dreaming areas, where dogs have strong spiritual and cultural significance. Animal overpopulation, particularly dogs, is an ubiquitous problem in Indigenous communities. This is the result of several factors. Regular facilities and services such as veterinarians, pounds and agencies etc are not readily available to service the animal population in communities so both dog numbers and dog health can often be out of control. Some communities will have twice yearly veterinary visits (depending on funding and commitment from shires); others have never seen a vet. Some communities will have women s groups who have been able to organise training for themselves to run regular antiparasitic treatments for their dog population; this alone can enable a healthy, but cheeky, rapidly reproducing dog population. A contributing factor to dense dog populations is overcrowding due to a severe lack of housing in Indigenous communities. For example, in the Aboriginal community of Maningrida, NE Arnhemland there are on average 20 people living in each house, an average of 5 to 6 dogs per house is not uncommon (Donelan 2008). 4
Dogs are of particular significance to elderly indigenous people, for the same reasons mentioned previously. Up to 27 dogs were seen in one elderly woman s household in the central Australian community of Kintore. Responsibility of Animal Population Control in Rural and Remote Areas Animal Management is a core deliverable responsibility of the nine new Northern Territory Shires. It has been an interesting period since July 2008 as each of the shires broaches this specialised problem in different ways. There is no consistency or sharing of models or frameworks observed across the shires. Although animal management has a separate budget line in the shire plan there seems to be different percentages and allocations across the shires. An insight into the variety of approaches will be given by briefly relating some of the shires steps. MacDonnell and West Arnhem Shires (WAS) have developed Animal Welfare and Control Programs with AMRRIC directly assisting as consultant advisors. WAS has had regular twice yearly AMRRIC-affiliated veterinary programs in place in their five major communities for several years. Table 2. Current Status of Dogs Desexed in West Arnhem Shire (WAS Council Animal Welfare and Control Program Framework, AMRRIC-2009-2013) Community Total number of dogs Percentage of dogs desexed (Approx) Jabiru 60 50% Kunbarllanjnja 340 70% Maningrida 718 70% Minjilang 150 50% Warruwi 120 70% Central Desert Shire has recently employed a veterinarian as their Animal Management Officer. She is proposing to standardise veterinary services, and asking providers to comply with an animal management plan which is being developed. This will lead to consistency across the shire Table 3. Dog Health Program statistics for Central Desert Shire communities, 2008-2009 (Benning, 2009) Surgically Desexed Chemical Sterilisation Euthanased Engewala 0 34 41 Harts Range 28 0 62 Ti Tree 83 0 24 5
Willowra 0 40 31 Laramba 34 0 77 Yuelamu 52 0 49 Nyirripi 27 0 50 Yuendumu 0 122 115 Lajamanu 56 39 26 *Lajamanu has MPA-50 injections, Engewala, Willowra, Yuendumu have Suprelorin implants Tiwi Islands Shire Council is one of several shires still struggling without an animal management policy despite AMRRIC and the University of Sydney providing an animal management plan. In December 2008 collars were given out to identify the two chosen dogs per household. The remaining dogs were to be culled. The Shire CEO and the local General Business Manager were enthusiastic in providing information that a total of 313 dogs were euthanased over two Dec/Jan vet visits. The new Litchfield Shire (LS) Dog Management By-laws place an emphasis on public safety and maintaining a congenial living environment in the rural area which closely surrounds Darwin. All dogs in this rapidly developing, rural area will have to be microchipped under new animal management bylaws proposed by the Council in an attempt to stop the major problem of dangerous dogs roaming the streets. However, the council is not yet willing to impose compulsory registration of animals. The approach to animal management in the shires can be very much a reflection of the CEO s attitude to local dogs and people, the pressure placed on the CEO/Shire Services Manager, etc by the local white population, expediency, lack of funds, etc. The constant changeover of council staff personnel make it difficult for them to gain the necessary respect, trust and understanding within the communities which is very important when dealing with the often sensitive issue of dogs in Indigenous communities AMRRIC Animal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC) works in a culturally sensitive and sustainable manner towards a vision of communities that are healthy and safe for people and animals. AMRRIC has carried out best practice models of appropriate, sustainable Dog Health Programs with an emphasis on large scale desexing, education and training programs. Consequently, one of AMRRIC s key roles is to co-ordinate and facilitate further Dog Health Programs in Indigenous communities nationally through facilitating and assisting shires and councils to develop their strategic animal management plans, lobbying for funding, developing education tools, and increasing public awareness of the dog overpopulation problem in remote areas. AMRRIC supports research into zoonoses through collaborative partnerships with various institutions-menzies Public Health Research, University Of Melbourne, University of Sydney s Australian Research Council Linkage grant project, James Cook University and the Wellcome Institute Genome Research, UK. 6
AMRRIC has developed a volunteer mentoring program and continues to carrying out education programs across various levels. Capacity building, education and encouraging placement of Environmental Health Workers and Animal Management Officers in remote communities are significant steps towards a sustainable outcome in animal management in remote areas. It is crucial to empower members of indigenous communities to drive and own their own animal management programs by providing choice through education and training and through the provision of services. Consequently programs will be community driven and hence sustainable. Conclusion Whilst there is progress in the NT urban areas regarding development of council bylaws, improvement of shelter facilities, introduction of compulsory microchipping, encouragement of desexing and servicing of town camps, on the whole, we are a long way off seeing this ideal situation in the remote communities of the NT; in the recent words of two shires Directors of Community Services I m so overwhelmed I don t know where to start and much more needs to be done. AMRRIC is committed to working with all stakeholders involved at all levels towards improving this current situation. References http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/products/851bbd844853978cca2574ef001387aa?ope ndocument, accessed 11.9.09. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4713.7.55.001, accessed 11.9.09. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytopic/edcc92cfc654bfabca256c3200008 838?OpenDocument, accessed 11.9.09. www.amrric.org, accessed regularly. Alice Springs Town Council Town Camps Animal Control Program Progress Report, July 2009. Benning K. (2009) Vet program statistics for Central Desert Shire for Financial Year 08/09 Donelan E. (2008) Veterinary Report Maningrida Dog Health Program - Review of the Program 2003 to 2008 West Arnhem Shire Council Animal Welfare and Control Program Framework, 2009-2013 Data supplied thanks to PAWS Darwin, RSPCA Central Australia, RSPCA Darwin, Alice Springs Town Council, Tangentyere Council, Palmerston City Council, Darwin City Council and Katherine Town Council. 7