Dogs are ubiquitous and strongly associated with human communities, but many roam freely, away from the owners' property and control. Free-roaming owned dogs can pose risks through disease transmission to and from other dogs, attacking domestic animals, fauna or humans, and involvement in road accidents. However, little research has focused on understanding their movement ecology, thereby hindering the development of effective management plans. We modified store-bought GPS collars and used them to track a sample of 43 free-roaming owned dogs from peri-urban sites in north-east New South Wales and south-east Queensland, Australia. Our aim was to quantify the activity ranges of owned dogs and the distances they travelled, whether free-roaming or accompanying people, and to identify some associated factors. The total activity ranges of our sample of dogs were variable (0.80-1776.20 ha), and the mean daily activity range of collared dogs was relatively large (7.23 +/- 11.99 ha), with mean daily accumulated distances travelled ranging from 0.25 to 4.81 km (mean = 1.95 +/- 1.10 km). The dogs exhibited two temporal activity peaks, one between 0700 and 1000 and a second between 1600 and 1900 hrs. Most human-mediated dog movements were short in duration, ranging from 45 min to 6 h, with dogs moving an average of 48.60 +/- 64.00 km, but up to 329.00 km from their home. The large activity ranges and relatively long movements in this sample of free-roaming owned dogs suggests they have potential to contribute to the spread of exotic and endemic zoonotic and canid diseases in the peri-urban coastal regions of eastern Australia. The baseline information collected here is crucial to our understanding of disease transmission among peri-urban dogs, and modelling spread within and between communities. Additionally, it provides valuable information for authorities seeking to improve management of free-roaming owned dogs.

Context. Dogs aid hunters in many parts of Australia. Because of close proximity, transfer of zoonotic disease between hunters, hunting dogs and wildlife can, and does, occur. Knowledge about cooperative hunting between humans and domestic dogs and interactions with wildlife in Australia is limited, but is necessary to improve zoonotic-risk mitigation strategies.

Aims. We aimed to describe the frequency and geographic distribution of hunting with dogs, and to document interactions between them and wildlife that could contribute to zoonosis transmission.

Methods.Australian hunters were invited via web-based hunting forums, hunting supply stores and government agency communications to complete an online questionnaire about their hunting activities.

Key results. Most of the 440 responding hunters resided on Australia's eastern coast. Pest animal management and recreation were their primary drivers for hunting with dogs. Most hunters used one or two dogs, and travelled ≥500 km to target feral pigs, rabbits, birds and deer. Almost a quarter of respondents (N = 313) had lost a dog while hunting, but most (93%, N = 61) were reportedly recovered within a few hours. Half the respondents indicated that they had encountered wild dogs while hunting, and reported a range of consequences from non-contact interactions through to attacks on the hunting dog or hunter.

Conclusions. Australian hunters frequently used dogs to assist in hunts of birds and introduced mammals, particularly where access was difficult because of rough terrain or thick vegetation. Interactions between hunters and non-target animals such as wild dogs were common, providing potential pathways for the spread of diseases. Furthermore, hunting expeditions >500 km from the point of residence occurred regularly, which could facilitate translocation of important zoonotic diseases between states and the creation of disparate foci of disease spread, even into highly populated areas.

Implications. Our improved understanding of hunting-dog use in Australia is essential to quantify the risk of disease transmission between wildlife and humans, identify transmission pathways and devise management plans to quash disease outbreaks. To promote rapid detection of exotic diseases, hunters should be encouraged to report unusual wildlife behaviour and interactions with their dogs.

Dogs (Canis familiaris) can transmit pathogens to other domestic animals, humans and wildlife. Both domestic and wild-living dogs are ubiquitous within mainland Australian landscapes, but their interactions are mostly unquantified. Consequently, the probability of pathogen transfer among wild-living and domestic dogs is unknown. To address this knowledge deficit, we established 65 camera trap stations, deployed for 26,151 camera trap nights, to quantify domestic and wild-living dog activity during 2 years across eight sites in north-east New South Wales, Australia. Wild-living dogs were detected on camera traps at all sites, and domestic dogs recorded at all but one. No contacts between domestic and wild-living dogs were recorded, and limited temporal overlap in activity was observed (32 %); domestic dogs were predominantly active during the day and wild-living dogs mainly during the night. Contact rates between wild-living and between domestic dogs, respectively, varied between sites and over time (range 0.003-0.56 contacts per camera trap night). Contact among wild-living dogs occurred mainly within social groupings, and peaked when young were present. However, pup emergence occurred throughout the year within and between sites and consequently, no overall annual cycle in contact rates could be established. Due to infrequent interactions between domestic and wild-living dogs, there are likely limited opportunities for pathogen transmission that require direct contact. In contrast, extensive spatial overlap of wild and domestic dogs could facilitate the spread of pathogens that do not require direct contact, some of which may be important zoonoses.