Someone suggested that we could call this fine specimen of a leatherback camp dog “Jenny” as a tribute to the abject failures of the Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin’s NT Intervention to do very-much-at-all-really about the parlous state of health of too many of the dogs that live in the 73 communities subject to that most flawed of recent attempts at social engineering on the grandest of scales.
But I thought it better that we give her a name that was more suited to her undoubted charm and character – so for present purposes we’ll call her “Fluffy”.
Fluffy is the best example of a leatherback camp dog that I came across during the last week or so of travelling through some remote corners of the NT.
In many of these communities the Federal government appointed “Australian Government Business Managers”, (AGBM’s) whose job it is to represent the interests of the Commonwealth there.
AGBMs live in demountable buildings or converted shipping containers in secure compounds behind tall barbed-wire fences. It is safe to say that the pay and conditions of the AGBM make the AGBM the most well-paid person in town – for an idea of their terms and conditions see this flyer from FaHCSIA.
How effective – from the perspective of local communities – those AGBM’s have been is a very open question. But it is undisputed that, like many of the measures implemented under the NT Intervention, AGBMs represent a clumsy and expensive attempt at delivering improved services to the 73 remote townships in the NT that they have effectively controlled for the last two years.
And, as one community member told me this week while we were watching Fluffy gobble a lump of meat I’d given her, if either of the NT or Federal governments allocated a mere fraction of the money they’ve wasted on the NT Intervention to looking after the health and welfare of the dogs in those communities then the Intervention might be seen as being more effective and would be more readily accepted by Aboriginal people here.
As it is now, there is no systematic approach to the health and welfare of dogs in remote townships by either the NT or Federal governments. But it is not all bad news – a number of dog health programs are supported on an ad-hoc basis and there is at least one non-government organisation that has done some great work to both raise the profile of dog health ad welfare as an issue for governments and to inform Aboriginal people of the real benefits that can come from careful and well-planned programs of dog welfare and control.
In the past dog control in remote townships has been conducted by two main measures – either “do nothing” or to conduct unilateral control measures with minimal community engagement.
The do nothing approach is sadly typical of the approach of governments to domestic animal control generally. For many remote councils and the NT and Federal governments it has been seen as just too hard to establish and build lasting relationships with Aboriginal people to work out fair and equitable systems of animal control and welfare. Local councils were generally overwhelmed by gross under-funding, lack of administrative capacity and appreciation of alternatives. Territory and State governments appear never to have quite come to grasp the seriousness of the situation.
Too often the alternative to doing nothing was the apparently easier but far less effective option based on a unilateral decision by a local (usually white) town clerk or administrator that there were “just too many bloody dogs around town” and arranging for someone, often the local policeman, to round up the arbitrarily-selected “excess” dogs and shoot them – sometimes out of town – often in front of their owners. Sometimes the more humane, but no less traumatic for the owners of the dogs, alternative was to arrange for a vet to come out and do a mass cull.
Slowly – too slowly for many – more enlightened approaches to remote community dog management are emerging. In my home town of Yuendumu the local Warlukurlangu Artists arts centre has for several years been supporting and funding a dog welfare program.
You can see some photos of healthy Yuendumu dogs and their close involvement with Warlukurlangu’s artists at the art centre’s website here.
Warlukurlangu describes dog program as:
After several years of running an ‘unoffical’ dog program, the Art Centre Committee agreed to formalise the art centre’s commitment to improving the health of the many dogs in Yuendumu.
The management of the art centre strongly believes that ‘healthy dogs mean healthy people’. As part of this program the art centre feeds dogs, de-ticks and cares for sick and abandoned dogs as well as providing daily advice to community members on how to better take care of dogs. WAAA also helps to fund vets to come to the community and sterilise dogs and treat them for various diseases.
In November 2007 and January 2008 the art centre together with Yuendumu Council organised for the Veterinary Doctor Honey Nelson to spend several weeks in the community putting down unwanted dogs and inserting birth control implants on as many male dogs as she could.
Warlukurlangu has received some assistance from the local Council and has also recently received limited funding from FaHCSIA through the local AGBM.
Another example of a more enlightened approach to the management of dog health and welfare in remote townships is AMRRIC (Animal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities), an organisation that:
…is an independent group of Veterinarians, academics, health workers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We facilitate sustainable dog programmes in remote Indigenous communities to improve the health and wellbeing of the entire community.
AMRRIC receives some funding from FaHCSIA and some other government agencies and is gradually expanding its reach and programs. One important part of its work is to provide relevant and culturally appropriate training material for veterinarians.
Most recently AMRRIC has developed the first-ever manual for Veterinarians and communities undertaking dog health programs in remote Indigenous communities. Conducting Dog Health Programs in Indigenous Communities: A Veterinary Guide has been produced by Dr Samantha Phelan, a Northern Territory-based veterinarian with significant field experience in remote Indigenous communities.
AMRRIC has also recently received funding from the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy to produce a DVD based on Samantha Phelan’s Veterinary Guide.
AMRRIC Board member Dr Samantha Phelan wrote this guide for Environmental health Practitioners (EHP’s) nationally. This key resource is a reference guide for people wanting to make dogs healthier in their own communities or in communities they work in. It was written for the wide range of people who take part in Environmental Health Programs in communities, such as Indigenous Environmental Health Workers (EHW), Environmental Health Officers (EHO), Area Health Services and Health Boards, Departments of Local Government (DLG), State Government Environmental Health Units and Indigenous Land Councils, to name a few. ‘The book is written to help each of those people to do a better job’.
The AAWS Funded DVD will be a project that involves a number of key players. First of all the background will be Samantha’s AMRRIC manual information and some of its illustrations will be animated. There will be film footage taken by the Media Students from Batchelor Institute for Indigenous Studies. Our actors will be Indigenous Students from Batchelor who formed the focus groups for the development of the Manual. This education DVD will enable EHP’s to educate schools, individuals, communities and groups on issues such as Stopping Skin Sores, Stopping Ticks and fleas, the benefits of desexing dogs, Stopping dog bites and what to tell children for staying safe, Stopping Worms in dogs and stopping them getting into people and Stopping dogs getting diarrhoea and spreading germs to people. It is anticipated that the project will be completed by the end of August.
AMRRIC deserves more support from governments and the public – Fluffy looks like an absolute wreck that most people would not hesitate to put down immediately – but, as I’ve seen from personal experience – it is relatively easy to save dogs like Fluffy and restore them to the good health they deserve. All it takes is food, some treatment for mange and ticks and some loving attention.


One Comment
Thank you for your ongoing support of AMRRIC and our work in remote Indigenous Communities. AMRRIC is the Peak body for Animal Management in remote communities and the only one of its type nationally and from what we know- internationally. Yet we have to fight year by year to be funded!
We agree with many of your comments and concerns. For some shires and communities it is still too hard to establish and build lasting relationships with Aboriginal people to work out fair and equitable systems of animal control and welfare. We see this often.
Some shires are making it clear to us and to the media (MacDonnell Shire CEO Wayne Wright stated publicly with AMRRIC on ABC news and Radio in Dec 08) that they are still grossly under-funded and under resourced to meet their legislative responsibilities for their core responsibility of animal welfare and control.
I am the first to agree that Territory and federal governments appear never to have quite come to grasp with the immensity of the problems faced in improving the long term health of dogs and consequently their owners and the inability of Indigenous people to access the resources they need to ‘do it themselves’.
Some shires are leading the way- MacDonnell Shire and West Arnhem Shires are developing sustainable frameworks for Animal Welfare and Control based on AMRRIC’s Best Practice Model. Holistic and sustainable models that employ and train Aboriginal people, encourage community ownership of the dog management plans and support them to do this, coupled with specialist veterinary services, two way knowledge transfer education programs paint a picture of sustainability and hopeful futures. Both of these shires have been visionary in recognizing this as a sustainable model.
Leaders like Dr Sue Gordon and Major General Dave Chalmers, as part of the Federal Intervention, certainly did get it about the link between animal health and human health and have been great supporters of AMRRIC and dog programs in general. Dave Chalmers who spent significant time at one of the AMRRIC Dog programs in Maningrida, fully understood the imperative need for appropriate resources to be allocated to the culturally complex issues regarding dogs in remote communities and supported and encouraged AMRRIC to submit a major funding submission to Minister Macklin for a comprehensive Dog Health Program across the NT. The submission was lodged with FaHCSIA and the Ministers Office in May 2008. To date we have not had an acknowledgement of receipt of the application.
Dr Sue Gordon speaking at the recent National aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Environmental Health Conference (NATSIEH) in Kalgoorlie, spent the first 8 minutes of her key note address discussing the links between dog health and human health and the importance of organizations like AMRRIC and other dog programs being resourced to support communities to effect change. We hope that FaHCSIA will look seriously at our submission and get some much needed resources targeted to this area as a matter of urgency.
Dogs are not just a ‘Municipal’ responsibility in remote communities. They are the responsibility of the owner and the shires who are charged with looking after them. The immensity of the problems are an Indigenous Affairs issue! The Department of Health should not be let off the hook here either. There is a growing body of evidence that supports the links and outcomes of poor dog health to human health, including effects on mental health and human safety. AMRRIC Conferences have highlighted these for years.
We hear it all the time from people in communities when I ask the question’ do you have any problems with your dogs?’ Almost always the first answer is, ‘Yeh- those sick ones are making us and our kids sick’. Why is it that these comments are not acknowledged at the higher levels I ask.
We have seen more than enough ‘Fluffy’s’ around communities I agree, but we have also seen a measured decline in these sort of sad cases where AMRRIC-style programs are in operation. Focussing on the positive stories keep us hopeful.
We will continue to advocate at all levels to bring about sustainable change!!! Support us by becoming a member. We need your voices to be heard on this issue.
‘Nothing changes when nothing changes’.
One Trackback