One Health and reconciliation: media portrayals of dogs and Indigenous communities in Canada

Summary

This qualitative media analysis explores how the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) portrayed ‘dog problems’ and their solutions in Indigenous communities in Canada from 2008 through 2018. We apply a One Health framework to demonstrate how human, animal, and the socio-environmental health are interconnected, which aligns more explicitly with Indigenous worldviews. Through this analysis, we respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) Calls to Action, specifically Action 19 (health inequity) and Action 84 (media). We found that the CBC portrayed dogs as “strays” and focused mainly on the removal of dogs, whether rehoming by animal rescue groups or through culling, and that rescue groups were portrayed as ‘animal lovers’. Meanwhile, journalists sometimes mentioned the lack of policies to support community-driven dog population control and veterinary services, but these policy deficits did not receive emphasis. The CBC coverage did not highlight systemic injustices that can impact dog health and welfare in Indigenous communities. This media analysis outlines ways forward for reconciliation with Indigenous communities when the media reports on dogs; we recommend journalists (i) focus on lack of veterinary services in communities and the impacts rather than the removal of dogs, (ii) discuss broader systemic structures and policies that limit access to veterinary services in Indigenous communities and (iii) how such resource constraints impact human and animal health.

INTRODUCTION

Domestic dogs play important roles within Indigenous families and communities, yet they can also cause health concerns, such as dog-bite injuries, the spread of zoonoses and safety concerns, especially with regard to free-roaming dogs in Indigenous communities (Brook et al., 2010; Aenishaenslin et al., 2014, 2019; Schurer et al., 2015a,b; Dhillon et al., 2016, 2019; Brookes et al., 2017, 2018; Baker et al. 2018, 2020; Boissonneault and Epp, 2018). Media coverage ‘can generate awareness of an existing condition, provide subsequent education and, in some cases, stimulate broad public response that forces governmental action’ [(Jones, 1997, p. 9)]. Based on a qualitative analysis, we explore how the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Canada’s national public broadcasting corporation, has portrayed ‘dog problems’ and their solutions in Indigenous communities in Canada, and by implication, how Indigenous peoples are represented in mainstream media through these ‘dog problems’.

This analysis responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) Calls to Action ( TRC, 2015) with regard to media coverage and health disadvantages faced by Indigenous communities. Stemming from the largest class action settlement in Canadian history, the TRC’s mandate is to facilitate reconciliation between residential school survivors, their families, their communities, and the rest of Canada. In 2015, the TRC released 94 Calls to Action. In this article, we focus on two of them:

1. Action 84 outlines steps that the media should take to advance Indigenous reconciliation, with explicit reference to publicly funded media organizations, including the CBC (Figure 1).

2. Action 19 concerns health inequities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada (Figure 2).

Media coverage on health-related issues can influence public discourse, policy debates, and leaders’ decisions about health-related services and policies (Weishaar et al., 2016). Globally, Indigenous peoples have a history of misrepresentation and marginalization in the media (Belfer et al., 2017; Nairn et al., 2017), including in Canadian media (Mahtani, 2001; Johnston, 2020).

One Health

This article begins to integrate the One Health concepts into responses to the TRC Calls to Action concerning the media and health inequities (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action, 2015). One Health refers to connections between human, animal and environmental health, and to the extent that they should not be studied or understood separately from each other. Human encroachment on wildlife habitat, climate change, mobility patterns, and ecosystem degradation are resulting in infectious disease threats (Friese and Nuyts, 2017). As such, One Health researchers have been particularly concerned with the transmission of zoonotic diseases, such as anthrax and rabies, and the links between human, animal, and ecosystem health. Other commonly examined issues are food safety, antimicrobial resistance, and environmental contamination among others (Craddock and Hinchliffe, 2015; Friese and Nuyts, 2017). Addressing these issues from a One Health perspective requires a multi-disciplinary approach that includes experts from various disciplines, such as public health, medicine, nursing, veterinary medicine, agriculture, ecology, conservation and epidemiology (Craddock and Hinchliffe, 2015). The World Health Organization, the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Organization of Animal Health have endorsed the One Health framework (FAO, OIE and WHO, 2010). In our approach to the promotion of One Health, ‘the environment’ encompasses social as well as physical dimensions; social dimensions affecting human, animal, and ecosystem health include migration and travel, cultural attitudes and beliefs, economic and political change and social inequities (Craddock and Hinchliffe, 2015; Friese and Nuyts, 2017).

Indigenous conceptualizations of health

Contrary to western conceptualizations of health and health promotion that portray health as individualistic and independent of social, cultural and political factors, for many Indigenous peoples, health is ‘shaped by larger social structures, including family, community, nature and the Creator’ [(Richmond et al., 2013, p. 3)]. The One Health approach aligns broadly with Indigenous conceptualizations of health through its integrated framework. As such, by integrating One Health with the TRC Calls to Action, we can conceptualize health as holistic and interconnected.

Indigenous peoples and health inequities in Canada

Due to the enduring influences of social policies and practices associated with colonialism, health inequities persist between Indigenous and settler populations worldwide (Czyzewski, 2011; Walker et al., 2017). In Canada, Indigenous peoples often have inadequate access to health services, especially in remote communities (Boissonneault and Epp, 2018). Despite Indigenous conceptualizations of health emphasizing interconnectedness between physical, mental, emotional, spiritual components and the social systems within which people live, these inequities are measured primarily in biomedical terms (Richmond and Ross, 2009). Moreover, health services that focus on cultural continuity and decolonized health curricula are lacking in Canada (Crowshoe et al., 2019).

DOGS IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES IN CANADA

In many Indigenous cultures, dogs have the status of kin and spiritual beings (Kohn, 2007; Riche, 2015) and dog health is important to community health in ways that go beyond biomedical definitions of human health (Riche, 2015). For example, Riche’s (2015) study of northern dogs in Inuit communities explains that if a sled dog were to be harmed, ‘the entire whole was compromised, and the society—including the intimate connection to the land, including the very health of its people—was jeopardized’ (p.186, emphasis added). However, dogs can also pose public health risks through the spread of zoonoses including diseases and parasites, injuries from dog bites and mental health impacts, such as fear and anxiety (Pike et al. 2014; Baker et al. 2018; Dhillon et al. 2019).

‘Dog problems’ in Indigenous communities: human health and dog welfare

Child health, injury incidence and appropriate health services are some of the issues raised in the TRC that we address in this article. Even though dogs are not mentioned directly in the TRC Calls to Action, Indigenous leaders and healthcare professionals have ranked dog-bite incidents and preventive services as top-10 priorities for injury prevention amongst Indigenous children and youth (Pike et al., 2014). With dog overpopulation comes increased risks of dog-bite injuries, which are more likely to occur in rural and remote Indigenous communities than in urban areas in Canada (Boissonneault and Epp, 2018; Dhillon et al., 2019). Alongside physical injuries, dog bites play a central role in the transmission of the rabies to humans (WHO and OIE, 2016). Moreover, dogs in northern Canada are also host for at least six genera of zoonotic parasites (Brook et al., 2010).

The lack of veterinary services also presents animal welfare concerns in Indigenous communities (Boissonneault and Epp, 2018). Without veterinary services such as sterilization, dog overpopulation can cause aggression between dogs over resources, leading to injuries, while females may end up having excess litters over their lifetime, compromising their health; dogs can also suffer from pathogens that are otherwise easily preventable and treatable (Brook et al. 2010). Other concerns include lack of veterinary care for dogs who may be ill, injured or may need to be humanely euthanized (Brook et al., 2010; Schurer et al., 2015a,b).

Barriers to resolving ‘dog problems’ in Indigenous communities

Many Indigenous communities in Canada have limited or no access to veterinary services (Baker et al., 2018; Dhillon et al., 2019). Barriers to access and uptake of veterinary services include high costs, compounded with socio-economic conditions and geographic isolation, as well as cross-cultural misunderstandings (Aenishaenslin et al., 2019; Baker et al., 2018). Additionally, communities may lack local laws and regulations concerning animal management or they may not be enforced for numerous reasons, including cultural associations with animals or resource constraints (Dhillon et al., 2016). As a result, many communities must resort to shooting dogs to limit population size (Brook et al. 2010; Boissonneault and Epp, 2018; Baker et al. 2020).

METHODOLOGY

This media analysis is part of a larger project examining human–animal relations, Indigenous reconciliation and health promotion in Canada with a focus on dogs. Fraser-Celin has been involved in veterinary outreach and participant observations in Indigenous communities and on Indigenous land in Alberta, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories; Rock has worked on human-dog relations and health promotion with different participant groups for over a decade.

Search strategy

We focused our search on CBC articles from between 2008 and 2018. We focused specifically on the CBC because the TRC’s Call to Action 84 calls upon the CBC to ‘be properly reflective of the diverse cultures, languages and perspectives of Aboriginal peoples’. This media analysis therefore presents an opportunity to examine how this Call to Action is reflected in CBC news articles. While we focused exclusively on Canada’s English public broadcaster, future studies should examine French-language public broadcasters, for-profit media and Indigenous-owned media outlets to explore different perspectives in the Canadian context.

We searched the Eureka database for CBC news articles with the following search strategy: LEAD= (Indigenous | (‘First Nations’ | ‘First Nation’)| (Indian*)| (Native*)| (reserve*)| (Inuit*))& LEAD= (dog+) which yielded 205 results. Based on titles and lead paragraphs, we then eliminated articles that addressed irrelevant topics (e.g. ‘hot dogs’, ‘dog DNA’ or articles which focused on locations such as ‘Dog Creek’). We supplemented the database search with a web-based search, using Google, to ensure that we retrieved articles that may not have been indexed in Eureka; we used the following search: CBC+ dogs+ Indigenous+ First Nations+ reserves. We searched the first three pages of results (n = 29) and after reviewing for duplicates, we did not find any new relevant articles.

Analysis

To begin, we focused our analysis on article titles because they are meant to capture the reader’s attention and convey a particular message (Milojević et al., 2011). We then moved on to the textual content of the articles. We engaged in a thematic content analysis through inductive coding, whereby the emergence of the themes was an iterative process (Braun and Clarke, 2020). We used NVIVO and Excel to code and organize the data. Whereas the title analysis formed the basis for the dominant themes, we support these themes with passages from the articles and by tallying the number of articles that fell into each category over time.

Although our approach is primarily a textual analysis, it is informed by our own lived experiences. We therefore interpret the narratives presented in these media articles through our own subjective lens as white women living in a society that privileges whiteness, and our knowledge and experiences in Indigenous communities, on Indigenous land, with veterinary outreach, and with dogs. Our recognition and acknowledgement of our subjectivities, as well as the context and complexities of the phenomenon we are investigating, are grounded in the interpretive tradition in qualitative research (Braun and Clarke, 2020).

FINDINGS

We found 71 CBC articles from across Canada that met the criteria for inclusion (Table 1). The majority appeared on the CBC North website (n = 14), followed by CBC Alberta (n = 12), CBC Manitoba (n = 11) and CBC NEWS (n = 10). Coverage also included reports from CBC British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Twenty articles (n = 20) listed an author (n = 16), whereas the rest were anonymous (n = 51); the most articles written by the same journalist was three (n = 3).

Journalistic portrayals of dogs in Indigenous communities

As shown in Table 2, the most common word used to describe dogs in Indigenous communities was ‘stray’ (n = 107). The journalists used this word to describe loose dogs who, ostensibly, had not been claimed by anyone in the community or whose claims to them were no longer in effect (‘unowned’). The second most common word was ‘roaming’ (n = 50), which journalists used to describe individual or groups of dogs that are either owned or unowned and move freely within the community (e.g. untethered, unaccompanied by a human). The word ‘unwanted’, was used by journalists to describe dogs that are unclaimed by individuals or the community. The words ‘feral’ and ‘wild’ were used to describe groups of domestic dogs that show aggressive behaviour, are unaccustomed to humans, or are unowned and roam freely within the community.

Thematic coverage over time (2008–18)

To discern whether the CBC’s reporting had shifted over time, we examined the titles and grouped them by theme over time (Table 3). Overall, the removal of dogs from Indigenous communities whether via rehoming by animal rescue groups or by culling received the most coverage (n = 24). Between 2008 and 2012, the CBC focused predominately on the Inuit Truth Commission’s inquiry into the historical slaughter, between 1950 and 1970, of 20 000 sled dogs by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) (n = 10) and between 2013 and 2018, coverage focused predominately on the removal of dogs (n = 21).

For the purpose of this article, we focus on the following dominant themes: (i) the removal of dogs from Indigenous communities through rehoming and culling; (ii) colonialism; (iii) dog aggression, (iv) veterinary services and (v) laws and regulations.

The removal of dogs from Indigenous communities: rehoming and dog culling

The removal of dogs through rehoming by animal rescue groups was the focus in nineteen articles (n = 19), while culling was the focus in five articles (n = 5). The main reasons stated for the rehoming or culling of dogs in Indigenous communities were: (i) negative dog welfare; (ii) dog overpopulation; and (iii) human safety concerns. The article titles included the following examples: ‘CC RezQs (an animal rescue group) is asking for help rescuing stray dogs from a reserve’ (24 September 2015); ‘Chief, vet urge dog cull after mauling death that rescue group says was preventable’ (16 May 2017). Rehoming dogs through animal rescue groups was the primary intervention in many of these cases, in particular to intervene in animal welfare cases and population control: ‘Sask. rescue extremely busy helping abused, injured, neglected dogs’ (5 February 2016); ‘Pet Save takes on “hungry” rescued Wikwemikong dogs’ (28 January 2014).

Reasons stated for negative welfare outcomes amongst dogs included (i) lack of veterinary services in Indigenous communities, and (ii) dog neglect, abuse and injuries: ‘She [a dog rescuer] took photographs that show frozen dogs, animals lying in heaps with bullet holes in their heads and homeless dogs taking shelter in dumps’ (18 January 2016). Many communities were reported to have dog overpopulation problems, which resulted in animal rescue groups going into the communities to remove dogs. Human safety concerns were also reported to be an issue compounded by overpopulation: ‘Mikisew Cree strike deal to tackle stray dog issue in Fort Chip’ (4 July 2014); ‘Northern Ontario stray dogs finding new homes in GTA (Greater Toronto Area)’ (19 October 2016). Oftentimes, communities engaged in dog culls to deal with overpopulation: ‘Some of our communities they have been reduced to taking the choice to shooting dogs at random to control population’ (11 March 2010).

As dog populations grow, CBC journalists explained, dogs may form ‘packs’, which can then be dangerous to community members: ‘Northern Saskatchewan First Nation to cull stray dogs; [b]and chief says wild dogs pose a safety risk to children’ (8 April 2015). There were several reports of community members expressing concern for children’s safety: ‘Every year, in at least one northern Saskatchewan community, a flag is raised about dogs travelling in packs or a child being mauled’ (25 May 2015); ‘Sometimes there’s a pack of dogs running around and it’s just not safe for the young children within the community’ (8 April 2015).

Article titles highlighted animal rescue groups’ opposition to dog culls: ‘Fort Chip dog culls prompts howls from animal rescue groups in Northern Alberta; reserve offered dogcatcher $100 bounty for each stray dog’ (13 February 2014); ‘Animal rescue group looking for help to halt dog cull’ (24 September 2015). As such, animal rescuers were often portrayed as ‘dog lovers’ and animal welfare and charities’ rescue and rehoming practices were celebrated: ‘without rescue groups taking on initiatives like this, many dogs would not get fixed and many more unwanted animals would end up being born and needing care’ (9 November 2018). Article titles also used similar language (emphases added): ‘“Amazing dog lovers” come together to offer vet services for First Nations dogs’ (15 February 2017); ‘Northern dogs get second chance at life in Winnipeg’ (14 January 2014).

Colonialism

Following the removal of dogs, the second most common theme was colonialism (n = 13). The prominent theme of these articles centered around an inquiry into how the federal government impacted the lives of Aboriginal people in Canada in the 1950s to the 1970s. They focused predominately on the killing of sled dogs to facilitate the relocation of Inuit people in the eastern Arctic into settlements: ‘Inuit still waiting for recognition of ‘ettlement-era trauma, dog slaughter’ (8 October 2016); ‘Inuit leader wants apology for dog deaths’ (23 March 2010).

CBC journalists repeatedly reported the assertion by Inuit that the RCMP and federal officials designed these slaughters to force them into settlements. They also reported on the lasting impacts caused by the slaughter: ‘The RCMP systematically slaughtered their dogs to force them into settlements. Since the Inuit relied on their dogs for transportation, killing them would end the Inuit nomadic way of life’ (18 June 2008); ‘Some Inuit elders […] recalled the difficulties […] faced in gathering food after police had killed their sled dogs’ (30 October 2009). However, journalists also reported on the RCMP claims that their officers only killed dogs who were sick, starving, injured or dangerous into the 1970s.

Dog aggression

Following the colonialism theme, the third most common theme was incidents of dog aggression leading to injury or death (n = 12): ‘Northern Quebec girl mauled by four dogs’ (5 December 2010); ‘If you look at the statistics, right across the country, we’ve had a number of maulings where it resulted in the death of children’ (9 November 2018).

The most stated reason for dog aggression was because of dog overpopulation and lack of regulations restricting dogs’ movements. Journalists explained that free-roaming dogs will form ‘packs’ and become aggressive toward humans: ‘packs of stray and owned dogs form, live on the fringes of the community and become dangerous’ (16 May 2017). Dogs were also reported to be hungry and then becoming aggressive toward humans: ‘Band member [name] said she had heard about dogs stealing children’s lunches—then her daughter was bitten, as were some other kids’ (28 January 2014).

CBC journalists explained that sterilization and removing dogs from the community via culling were reported as ways to control populations to prevent dogs from forming dangerous groups: ‘fixing [sterilizing] the dogs also makes communities safer’ (15 February 2017); ‘Some of Manitoba’s First Nations have resorted to dog culls to control the [dog overpopulation] problem’ (9 November 2018).

Veterinary services

Following dog aggression, the fourth theme focused on lack of policies regarding veterinary services in Indigenous communities (n = 11): ‘Veterinarians and volunteers trek north to La Loche; Northern clinic will offer spay and neuter services in local gymnasium’ (25 May 2015); ‘Vets [veterinarians] want pet sterilization program on more reserves’ (3 February 2010).

Journalists explained that the most stated reasons for the lack of veterinary services were: (i) geographic isolation which makes it difficult to access veterinary care; and (ii) veterinary services are unaffordable for most communities: ‘many of the dogs were from communities that don’t have easy access to vet care […] some owners can't afford the procedure, or don't have means to transport their dogs’ (15 February 2017). Only two articles reported that culture as a reason for lack of uptake of veterinary services: ‘[the notion that the dog is] ‘part of the family’ not meshing with culture’ (16 May 2017); ‘a lot of our people are dog lovers…. They hate to see that [spay and neutering] happen to the animals’ (18 January 2016).

Veterinary services, in particular spay/neuter clinics, were named as important ways to curb dog overpopulation: ‘in the end, the dog overpopulation comes from a lack of infrastructure, one component being vet services’ (16 May 2017). Outcomes, such as curbing dog abandonment, improving welfare and increasing safety for community members, were highlighted by journalists: ‘the goals of clinic were to keep them from having unwanted puppies and hopefully reduce the number of dogs ending up sick and homeless’ (15 February 2017); ‘you get your dogs spayed or neutered then it makes the community more safe because dogs aren’t packing and they’re not roaming. It calms everything down’ (17 December 2014).

Local laws and regulations

Following the theme of lack of veterinary services, is the lack of policies regarding local laws and regulations or enforcement concerning dogs, only focused on in two articles (n = 2): ‘Stray dog problems on First Nations could be reduced by bands passing laws’ (24 April 2018); ‘Battle underway to control stray dog population in First Nations communities: stricter bylaws, educational workshops and sterilization campaigns are being employed’ (9 June 2014).

Although some First Nations were reported to have local laws against roaming dogs, journalists reported that many reserves had no local laws regarding dogs: ‘An Alberta First Nation that brought in laws to deal with packs of feral dogs says the strategy could be used on other reserves across the country that are struggling with their canine population’ (24 April 2018); ‘Many small communities in the province are struggling to figure out how to deal with a serious stray dog problem. Some have no bylaws, catchers or licensing programs to help manage the swelling canine population’ (30 August 2018).

The use of collars and tethers, and licensing and registration were reported as ways to identify dogs, to limit movement and packing for human safety, to enforce better animal welfare, and as a way to keep track of dogs: ‘The agencies [non-profit animal welfare groups] have been helping the band provide leashes and collars to dog owners and warn them pets that threaten the safety of the community will be removed’ (10 June 2018); ‘Now, the reserve requires registrations and owners to meet a standard of animal care’ (24 April 2018).

DISCUSSION

This media analysis highlights that CBC coverage focused predominately on the removal of dogs from Indigenous communities, whether by culling or by rehoming (as an alternative to culling), even after the creation of the TRC Calls to Action in 2015. We found that the CBC predominately portrayed dogs in Indigenous communities as ‘strays’, and animal rescuers as ‘animal lovers’. Dogs in Indigenous communities, however, are often owned, but free-roaming, rather than ‘strays’, and are often considered family members and companions, with positive impacts for health and well-being (Aenishaenslin et al. 2019; Baker et al. 2018; Dhillon et al., 2016, 2019).

Studies have shown that negative media portrayals of Indigenous peoples and issues can perpetuate racism and negative stereotypes of Indigenous peoples among the wider population (Stoneham et al. 2014). When portraying animal rescuers as ‘animal lovers’, journalists may undermine Indigenous peoples’ relationship with their dogs and their capacity to care for them. At the same time, the removal and rehoming of dogs from Indigenous communities may be reminiscent of Canada’s ‘Sixties Scoop’ [Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action (TRC), 2015], which could re-traumatize a community (Lévesque, 2010). When the CBC did report on colonial practices, journalists highlighted the federal government’s multiple roles in the mass slaughter of Inuit dogs from the 1950s through the 1970s (Lévesque, 201-0 ). This type of coverage does engage in reconciliation and aligns with the TRC’s advice for journalists by reporting on colonial legacies. Present-day ‘dog problems’, however, were not consistently presented as products of inequities faced by Indigenous populations, but rather as a lack of capacity within Indigenous families and communities.

Linkages between colonialism and dog-related problems rarely received attention in CBC stories that we analyzed. The lack of dog-related policies, legislation, and programming results from competition for public resources and benefits, as well as overall financial constraints in Indigenous communities that affect the provision of services (Dhillon et al. 2019). Many Indigenous communities in Canada have inadequate access to human health services, housing and proper sanitation [Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada: Calls to Action, 2015; Czyzewski, 2011; Dhillon et al. 2016]; these issues often take precedence over veterinary services and other dog-related programs (Dhillon et al. 2016). Yet, studies have shown that the lack of veterinary services, animal by-laws and legislation, dog population management plans, and dog-bite prevention programs result in increased public health issues such as dog-bite incidents and fatal attacks in Indigenous communities, to which children are particularly vulnerable (Pike et al. 2014; Dhillon et al. 2019).

CONCLUSION

This study reveals that CBC journalists reporting on ‘dog problems’ in Indigenous communities have focused predominately on the removal of dogs via rehoming and culling, rather than on socio-economic disparities and health inequities. This focus on the removal of dogs can undermine Indigenous peoples’ capacity to care of their dogs. To advance the cause of reconciliation through the media and health, as per the TRC’s Calls to Action 84 (media; CBC specifically) and 19 (health), we recommend that journalists (i) focus on lack of veterinary services in communities and the impacts rather than the removal of dogs; (ii) discuss broader systemic structures and policies that limit access to veterinary services in Indigenous communities, and (iii) how such resource constraints impact human and animal health. By highlighting such policy and program failures and potential for advancements, rather than the removal of dogs, the CBC would advance reconciliation through the promotion of One Health when focusing on human, animal and socio-environmental health issues in Indigenous communities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We respectfully acknowledge that the Winnipeg Humane Society is located within Treaty No. 1 Territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe (Ojibway), Ininew (Cree), Oji-Cree, Dene, and Dakota Nations, and the homeland of the Métis and the University of Calgary is located on the traditional territories of the people of the Treaty 7 region in Southern Alberta, which includes the Blackfoot Confederacy (comprising the Siksika, Piikani and Kainai First Nations), as well as the Tsuut’ina First Nation, and the Stoney Nakoda (including the Chiniki, Bearspaw and Wesley First Nations);the City of Calgary is also home to Métis Nation of Alberta, Region III. . We received in-kind support from the Group for Research with Indigenous Peoples in the O’Brien Institute for Public Health and from the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. Prior to submission, we benefited from presenting this work at a joint conference of the American Anthropology Association and the Canadian Anthropological Society.

We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers who provided helpful feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. At the time of analysis and drafting of this article, Fraser-Celin was a Postdoctoral Research Associate supervised by Rock in the Department of Community Health Sciences in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary. We would like to thank Dr Rita Henderson for mentorship in Indigenous health research in Canada and Thomas Snow for mentorship on the role and positioning of dogs in Indigenous communities in Alberta. The professional and personal development regarding Indigenous reconciliation Fraser-Celin pursued while at the University of Calgary through the Kairos Blanket Exercise, the Fundamentals of OCAP course, as well as community engagement at the Winnipeg Humane Society were instrumental in the development of this article.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-130569 to M.J.R.] and an O'Brien Institute for Public Health Postdoctoral Scholarship to V.L.F.C.

REFERENCES