Introduction

Dogs have been an integral part of the Inuit social and cultural environment for generations. Before Inuit settled in permanent communities in the 1950s and 1960s, dogs were essential travel and hunting companions. Travel mostly took place by sled in winter and spring when three to twelve dogs harnessed in a fan-hitch would pull a sled over the sea-ice. Dogs also smelled seal breathing holes in the sea-ice, most of which are invisible to the human eye, and chased and tired out bears, which made the bear hunt less dangerous for hunters (Inukpuk 2009). Inuit socialized their dogs by letting them roam free at all times and by giving them atiit (names), which signified that they shared kinship relations with dogs (Otak et al. 2014). In fact “the community as a whole consist[ed] not only of people but also of the dogs they own[ed]” (Laugrand and Oosten 2002:101). In the 1960s, snowmobiles replaced dogs and nowadays, only a few dog teams remain for recreational purposes (Lévesque 2008). Nevertheless, dogs are still common in the Inuit landscape. In Nunavik, a 500,000 km2 territory of 12,000 inhabitants located north of the 55th parallel in the province of Quebec, Canada, dogs are abundant in each of the fourteen communities (Duhaine et al. 2015). Their number combined with the common practice of letting dogs roam free for part of the day contributes to a number of public health risks including bites, aggressions and potential transmission of zoonosis. One of these risks relates to the role of dogs in transmitting wildlife rabies to people. Arctic fox rabies is endemic in Nunavik, where rabies cases are reported in dogs and wildlife each year, putting humans at risk of infection by this fatal disease (Aenishaenslin et al. 2014). Zoonotic parasites carried by dogs have also been detected in Nunavik inhabitants (Messier et al. 2012). These health issues have been documented as well in First Nations communities in Canada, and their importance may increase with ongoing environmental changes related to global warming in the Arctic (Jenkins et al. 2013; Lowe 2014; Macpherson et al. 2013; Salb et al. 2008; Schurer et al. 2015a, b).

Dog-related health issues are exacerbated by the lack of locally available veterinary services, uncontrolled births and overpopulation. There are no veterinary clinics in Nunavik, and dog owners are obliged to send their dogs by air to southern regions in order to spay or neuter their animals or to get them treated in case of diseases and injuries. In Nunavik, few prevention and control interventions have been implemented to address dog-related health issues. Some communities have by-laws that require dog owners to keep their dogs tied-up. Post-exposure prophylaxis treatments are administered by the health authorities to individuals potentially exposed to rabies due to a dog bite, and an annual free-of-charge rabies vaccination program for dogs has been offered since 1983 by the provincial Ministry of Agriculture (Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des pêcheries du Québec 2017). However, these interventions have not demonstrated their effectiveness to sustainably reduce the occurrence of bites or other dog-related health risks (Aenishaenslin et al. 2014). One hypothesis is the low compliance of the population with some of these measures, possibly due to low social and cultural acceptability. The social, cultural and historical context of Nunavik makes interventions targeting dogs a sensitive subject. In particular, the imposition of the Agricultural Abuse Act in Nunavik in the 1950s and 1960s, which forced dog owners to tie up their animals as a public safety measure, led to the demise of a great many dogs that were killed by local and provincial authorities on the grounds because they were either roaming free or sick. This is still a traumatic incident in the memories of Inuit that has tainted the relationship between Inuit and provincial and federal authorities to this day (Croteau 2010; Lévesque 2010; McHugh 2013; Tester 2010a, b; Zahara and Hird 2015). Inuit perspectives and practices related to dogs, such as the acceptability of current interventions, are poorly understood and have never been formally evaluated in Nunavik (Lévesque 2015). Public health authorities, local governments, and community members have called for transdisciplinary partnerships to understand and address dog-related health risks with a sustainable, long-term approach (Herbert 2007).

In response to these knowledge gaps regarding changing Inuit perspectives and practices toward dogs and call for action, researchers partnered with local Inuit organizations and public authorities to develop a participatory, action research project designed according to the Ecosystem Approaches to Health (Ecohealth) (Charron 2012). This paper presents the results from a first study that is part of a larger research program addressing dog health, dog-related health risks for humans and perceptions of dogs in Inuit communities using an interdisciplinary perspective. Mixed-methods were used to achieve the main study objective: understanding the practices and perceptions of dog owners in the Nunavik region in order to better address dog-related health issues. The study also compares the practices and perceptions of Inuit and non-Inuit residents. The study took place in one community in Nunavik where 75% of residents are Inuit (Government of Canada 2017).

Methods

The study design consisted of a multidisciplinary sequential explanatory mixed-method approach (Creswell and Plano Clark 2010; Mongeau 2009). The quantitative portion of the study consisted of a cross-sectional survey administered to dog owners and the qualitative portion consisted of individual interviews of both dog owners and non-owners. Qualitative and quantitative data were interpreted together as complementary information sources. Consent forms and questionnaires were available in the three local languages: English, French and Inuktitut. Interviews were conducted in English or French. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study protocol and the tools developed were reviewed by ethical committees at the Université de Montréal (Comité d’éthique de la recherche en santé, certificate number 15-133-CERES-D), at the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue (Comité d’éthique de la recherche avec des êtres humains, certificate number 2016-06), and by the Nunavik Nutrition and Health Committee, which ensures regional coordination and communication on issues related to health and serves as liaison between researchers and Nunavik communities.

Cross-Sectional Survey

A questionnaire including 52 open and closed questions was developed by the research team and project partners to assess practices and perceptions of dog owners in relation to dogs, dog health, and dog-related health risks. The questionnaire included four main topics: dog demographics and management practices, dog health and dog-related health risks, use of veterinary services and perceptions of dogs. Questions relevant to dog demographics and practices were adapted from Brook et al. (2010). The survey was conducted in the fall of 2015, using a convenience sample of dog owners. Recruitment of the respondents was done on a voluntary basis using four strategies: (1) door-to-door; (2) during community events; (3) through partner organizations and local collaborators (Makivik Corporation, Kativik Regional Government, municipality office, Nunavik Health and Social Services Regional Office); and (4) on social media. The questionnaire was administered orally by one representative of the research team. An Inuit collaborator was present to introduce the study and provide translation when needed. Descriptive analysis and comparative analysis between subgroups of dogs and owners were conducted. To distinguish between Inuit and non-Inuit, we used the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) beneficiary status, an official status of Quebec residents that is reserved for Inuit (Gouvernement du Québec 1975). Pearson’s Chi squared test was used to assess significant differences in proportions between groups and Student’s t test to compare means (P < 0.05). Answers to open-ended questions were categorized into most frequent categories of answers for the main types of dog health problem reported, the main reasons to support the importance of dog vaccination, the main veterinary services requested, and the main types of behavior following a dog bite or scratch. Statistical analyses were carried out using Epi Info version 7 and SPSS Statistics version 19.

Individual Interviews

An interview plan was developed jointly by the research team and the project partners. Semi-structured interviews included 23 non-exclusive, open-ended questions covering four general topics: dog demographics, cultural perceptions, nutrition and dog health care, and governmental and non-governmental organizations’ programs with dogs. Each interview was approximately 30 min long and was recorded. Interviews were conducted during August and September, 2016. Recruitment was done on a voluntary basis using (1) a list of key informants, (2) social media, and (3) local collaborators. All interviews were administered by the same member of the research team (P.B.) and were transcribed in Microsoft Word and coded using NVivo software version 11.4.1. The codebook was developed by tagging specific topics in each interview. This first codification, which largely followed the interview framework, was followed by a second coding which aimed to identify sub-themes. The data were analyzed using the thematic content analysis method (Neuendorf 2016), the aim being to analyze the characteristics of the interviewees’ remarks in order to obtain a better understanding of the meaning of their comments. For sake of clarity, people who participated in the survey are referred to as “respondents” and people who were interviewed are referred to as “interviewees.”

Results

A total of 67 people participated in the cross-sectional survey. Women represented 64.2% (n = 43) and Inuit 52.2% (n = 35) of respondents. The amount of time spent in Nunavik varied greatly among respondents, from 6 months to 60 years. Most respondents (76.1%) owned only one dog, and the maximum number of dogs owned by a single owner was 13 (a sled dog team owner), for a total of 105 owned dogs reported by respondents. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 people (5 Inuit women, 7 Inuit men, 7 non-Inuit women, 2 non-Inuit men). Thirteen of the interviewees owned at least one dog, but all interviewees had experienced dog ownership during their adulthood. Five of the interviewees self-identified as dog team owners and owned 6 dogs or more at the time of the interview.

Dog Demographics and Management Practices

Among the 105 dogs in the survey, 54.3% (57/105) were male and 73.3% (77/105) were mainly used as companion animals (Table 1). Respondents mentioned that they own dogs for many reasons: to have a pet, a friend, for protection, to sled, to eat food leftovers, or just because they always had dogs. Many interviewees, Inuit or non-Inuit, said they keep dogs for personal protection when on the land. A few people said that they owned dogs to keep the dog sledding tradition alive. 78% (52/67) of respondents declared that they occasionally let their dog roam free in the village, and 40.3% (27/67) let their dog roam free at least once a day. Interviewees said that they keep Inuit dogs (this category seemed to also include all mixed-breed dogs that resemble a Husky) outdoors and smaller dogs, referred to as “pet toys,” inside houses. When interviewees were asked about the best way to take care of a dog, some mentioned that letting the dog roam free does not mean that it is abandoned or not being taking care of, and this is especially true for puppies. An Inuit interviewee mentioned “Some new people in town don’t know our culture and see a dog on the street [and] figure it’s abandoned. It’s not necessarily abandoned because a lot of us [mushers] are raising dogs beside our house first before we bring them out with the team to socialise them.” Some people also said that dogs need to exercise and that they do not understand how a dog could be chained all year long. Others mentioned that northern dogs should not be fed every day, a point of view that creates conflict in some neighborhoods. On the other hand, some interviewees said that there are bad owners who just let their dogs roam free and that dogs that are well taken care of are chained, fed and cleaned.

Table 1 Description of the Surveyed Dog Population (Cross-Sectional Survey).
Full size table

Dog Health and Dog-Related Health Risks

The most frequent category of dog health problems reported was wounds resulting from dog fights (42.2%) (Table 2). 76.2% (80/105) of dogs owned by respondents were vaccinated against rabies. The main reported reason for vaccinating dogs was to protect the dog’s health (reported by 85.1% of the respondents, Table 2), while only 20.9% reported the risk of rabies transmission to humans as a reason for vaccination. A majority of interviewees mentioned that the best way to keep dogs healthy was vaccination.

Table 2 Dog Health Problems, Vaccination Coverage and Use of Veterinary Services.
Full size table

Respondents were aware that rabies is dangerous for humans, but few mentioned the risk of parasites or other zoonotic diseases. Twenty-seven respondents (40.3%) reported that they, or a member of their family, had been bitten or scratched by a dog in Nunavik. This proportion was significantly higher in Inuit (62.9% vs. 15.6%, Table 3). The most frequent reported behavior toward a dog bite or a dog scratch was to go to the hospital (70.1%), followed by killing the dog (20.9%). In general, interviewees considered that loose and stray dogs were dangerous. Many said that loose dogs were a problem because of the risk of attacking a child, an adult or a leashed dog. However, interviewees did not seem to agree on the numbers of free roaming dogs and dog aggressions that occurred in the community: while some perceived that the situation was a lot better now that there was a dog catcher in town and better than in other Nunavik communities; some others still found that there were too many dogs roaming free.

Table 3 Dog Aggressions and Respondent’s Behavior Toward a Dog Bite or Scratch (n = 67).
Full size table

Use of Veterinary Services

A lower proportion of Inuit respondents than non-Inuit reported that their dog has been seen by a veterinarian (47.7% vs. 87.5%, Chi-squared test, P = 0.001) (Table 2). Among the respondents who reported use of veterinary services, a greater proportion of Inuit mentioned the use of services within Nunavik (mostly rabies vaccination provided by the government) compared to non-Inuit (68.8% vs. 28.6%, Chi-squared test, P = 0.01), and the opposite was observed for use of veterinary services outside Nunavik in private practices in the south (56.3% of Inuit vs. 92.9% of non-Inuit) (Table 2). However, interviewees seemed to be uncertain about services that were offered in Nunavik, such as where to get vaccination or first aid services. One mentioned “We don’t have a vet, we don’t have the proper information. When my puppy was sick, I was desperately looking for somebody to help. Myself, I’ve taken the puppy to the hospital. Few other people have tried to, but they can’t do anything.”

35.9% (37/105) of the dogs in the study were spayed or neutered, but this percentage was lower in dogs owned by Inuit versus non-Inuit (14.1% vs. 68.3%, Chi-squared test, P < 0.01; see Table 4 for details). 62.9% (22/35) of Inuit respondents declared that they would get their dog spayed or neutered if the service was available in the community. When asked what could be done to improve the situation of dogs in the village, 16 out of 21 interviewees clearly mentioned the necessity of veterinary services. Even if the services are expensive, many people said they would use them because it would be cheaper than sending their dogs by plane to a veterinary clinic in the south.

Table 4 Level of Agreement with Different Perception Statements Related to Dogs.
Full size table

Perceptions of Dogs

Among the eight perception statements that were evaluated in the survey, four were positive statements about dogs (Table 4). Among these, the only statistical difference in the proportion of respondents that “strongly agreed” between Inuit and non-Inuit was found for the statement “Dogs are important for Inuit” (Table 4). Most interviewees claimed that although the status of dogs had changed over time, they were still culturally relevant nowadays. Many said that dogs were family members, that having a big and friendly dog helped some people increase their social status, or that they loved owning dogs because they always had. Some people, mushers for the most part, said owning dogs was a way to connect to their culture, to be on the land, and see how their ancestors lived.

Regarding the four statements that showed negative perceptions of dogs, the distribution of answers was more evenly spread among categories, except for “you are afraid of dogs” for which a clear majority of respondents strongly disagreed (59.7%) (Table 4). For the statement “When a dog bites someone, it should be killed,” a significantly higher proportion of respondents strongly agreed among Inuit (42.9% vs. 9.4%, Chi squared test, P = 0.002). This difference was also present for “There are too many dogs in my community,” with 45.7% of Inuit who strongly agreed versus 15.9% among non-Inuit (Chi-squared test, P = 0.008) (Table 4). In contrast with survey respondents, many interviewees, especially Inuit, mentioned that people can be afraid of dogs, especially the ones they did not know or that were roaming free. One said that: “People are afraid of dogs. A lot of people here see them as a nuisance. I think there is an overworry about dogs harming people.” Almost all respondents said that children were taught to throw rocks at dogs, and that some attacked dogs when they were chained. Almost every interviewee agreed that a vicious dog should be killed. One Inuk mentioned: “If I have an aggressive dog toward humans, I’m going to put it down. I believe dogs shouldn’t be aggressive to humans.” Our ancestors said: “if a dog gets a taste for human blood, it should be put down along with all the other dogs that witnessed the aggressive behavior towards humans.” Because dog have a mind on their own and they know it’s okay if that other dog eats this. Our ancestors always said: “once you get bitten by a dog, make sure you put it down because it’s going to try to do it again.” However, for many other interviewees, especially non-Inuit and mushers, a dog that bites by accident was not perceived as a vicious dog, and the dog should not necessarily be killed.

Discussion

Combining a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews, this study allowed the identification and quantification of several important health and well-being issues related to dogs, an essential step toward a better understanding of the relationships between dogs, health and Inuit.

One major finding of this study lies in the demonstration of the high importance of dogs for Inuit, an importance that is not always recognized by non-Inuit living in the community. The importance of dogs in Indigenous communities has been documented previously in other contexts and our findings are consistent with these previous studies (Brook et al. 2010; Schurer et al. 2015b). Schurer et al. (2015b) documented the changes that have occurred in the role of dogs in Cree and Assiniboine Nakota communities in Saskatchewan in a recent study, although the role of protection seems to remain common in these communities nowadays. The dog’s role seems to be in transition as well in Nunavik, as more dogs are considered “pets” by their owners rather than working animals (Brunet and Lévesque 2018).

Despite the diversification of the dog’s role in northern communities, dogs are still culturally relevant and are considered important components of Inuit well-being and culture. This diversification may have a twofold impact. On the one hand, it contributes to keeping dogs (and their benefits for Inuit well-being) in communities even though dogs are no longer needed for transportation. On the other hand, changes in the Inuit–dogs relationship and in Inuit lifestyle may contribute to increase some dog-related health risks. For example, dogs were traditionally kept free roaming in lower numbers in smaller Inuit communities where they were living among people, thereby favoring good socialization of dogs and a better knowledge of dog behaviors by Inuit (Laugrand and Oosten 2002, 2015; Tumivut 2000). Nowadays, owners are asked to keep their dogs tied-up, mostly to prevent reproduction. However, this practice may also reduce healthy socialization of dogs, exacerbate dog aggressiveness and favor negative perceptions of dogs by the population and the adoption of risky behaviors such as throwing rocks at dogs. Moreover, this study also points to the fact that community by-laws regarding dogs may be only partially applied, reducing their effectiveness in controlling the growth of the dog population.

The importance of dogs in Inuit culture has been previously documented, especially to explain the trauma caused by the killing of Inuit dogs in Northern Canada in 1950 by government officials (Croteau 2010; Laugrand and Oosten 2002; Qikiqtani Truth Commission 2013). However, how the profound changes in Inuit ways of life have affected the importance of dogs and the Inuit–dog relationship are not well understood and this study highlights the need for more research in this area. For example, we found some contradictions between the quantitative and qualitative results. In the quantitative survey, more than three quarters of Inuit respondents declared that they either moderately (23%) or strongly disagree (54%) about being afraid of dogs, but during the interviews, almost all Inuit interviewees revealed that they were afraid of free roaming dogs. Further investigation is needed to understand these findings.

Regarding dog-related health risks for the population, results suggest that some local preventive services are well used by dog owners in the community, such as rabies vaccination (declared vaccination coverage in dogs over 75%), and this can be considered good news from a public health perspective. Indeed, this proportion is much higher than those reported in other Canadian First Nation communities (Brook et al. 2010; Schurer et al. 2015a). The study also highlighted that potential rabies exposure is still an issue (about 40% of dog owners reported a dog bite or scratch). Human rabies clinical cases have never been reported in Nunavik, but exposure to the rabies virus through dog bites occurs. A previous study reported that 76 people consulted health professionals following dog bites in this region between 1996 and 2009, 6 of whom were bitten by a confirmed rabid dog (Aenishaenslin et al. 2014). In addition, this study that also revealed that dog bites most often affect children under the age of 10 years (Aenishaenslin et al. 2014). The present study also suggests that bites are frequent and probably underreported. It adds a new element to the understanding of rabies risk in the region by showing that appropriate preventive behaviors are not fully adopted by the population, with 3 out of 10 dog owners unwilling to consult a health professional following a dog bite. Only a minority of respondents specifically mentioned the risk of rabies for humans when asked about the benefits of vaccination of the dogs (Table 2) or thought of verifying the dog’s vaccination status after a bite (Table 3).

The results also highlight several differences between Inuit and non-Inuit dog owners’ practices, many of which can be attributed to inequitable access to veterinary services. This is illustrated by the lower proportion of spayed or neutered dogs with Inuit owners, despite a willingness to use this service if it was available in the community. Previous studies also found low sterilization rate in remote communities and have shown that this situation can be addressed by increasing the availability of veterinary services in the region (Brook et al. 2010; Schurer et al. 2015a). However, culturally related factors have a clear influence on dog management practices and this should be taken into account in decision making when implementing interventions to mitigate dog-related health risks. For example, letting dogs roam free is common, accepted, and in some cases viewed as essential by Inuit because it is based on well-integrated cultural practices. This can explain the lack of compliance to previous interventions implemented to prevent dog overpopulation, bites and exposure to rabies virus that have focussed on keeping the dogs tied-up. Also, this situation cannot be addressed simply by increasing availability of services or by increasing resources to control free dogs in the region. Schurer et al. (2015b) have documented divergent perceptions regarding veterinary services such as dog spay and neuter programs in other Indigenous communities and highlighted concerns regarding the perceived sustainability of such dog control programs. Similarly, our results suggest that alternatives to these control measures may be important to consider in the future in order to implement culturally adapted solutions. This illustrates the complexity of issues related to dogs in the Nunavik context and the need for an open dialogue between Inuit and non-Inuit, who are both involved in the implementation of solutions.

This study was exploratory and should be seen as a first step in a broader Ecohealth project. As such, it has several limitations. First, it was restricted to one community, which is the village where the proportion of non-Inuit residents is the highest in Nunavik. This may have an impact on the results, as the non-Inuit “influence” can be higher in such a context. Second, we used a small convenience sample for both the survey and the interviews and thus we cannot state that the results are representative of all dog owners. This recruitment method may have introduced bias in the quantitative results, by favoring the inclusion of motivated dog owners, and this may have led to an overestimation of some variables, such as the vaccination rate. Recruitment of survey participants was reported as an issue in the Nunavik context by our local collaborators, who mentioned that 67 respondents with almost half Inuit participants should be considered as a success. Given the small number of participants, the convenience sampling design and the inclusion of only one Inuit community, these results should nevertheless be interpreted with caution. Finally, the survey was restricted to dog owners, and the measures of perceptions could be different in other residents who are also important actors to involve in dog management and public health interventions. Future studies of this kind would benefit from including multiple Inuit communities, a larger, more representative sample of participants and residents that are not dog owners.

Conclusion

This study addresses dog management practices, dog-related health risks and perceptions of dogs in an Inuit community using a multidisciplinary perspective in line with an Ecohealth approach.

The research team used interdisciplinary and participatory methods with local partners: the survey questionnaire was developed, tested, and administered in close collaboration with local partners, and the latter participated in the interpretation and dissemination of results. Four posters presenting the study results were developed and adapted with insights from the community, and the municipality released the final dissemination products during a Nunavik dog sled race event (Groupe International Vétérinaire 2016).

Although it is restricted to one Inuit community, this study is the first to investigate Inuit perceptions and practices regarding dogs using an interdisciplinary mixed-methods approach. It provides new insight into contemporary Inuit–dog relationships that are crucial for the development of integrated, sustainable and culturally adapted solutions to both the mitigation of dog-related human health risks and the reinforcement of health and wellness benefits of dogs in these remote communities.