Are domesticated dogs a colonial legacy? Dissecting colonial ideas around Fiji’s free-roaming dog population.
By Sofia Weerts, Research Advisor
Fiji’s free-roaming dog (FRD) population is a familiar part of our country’s social and ecological fabric; they walk the streets, rest in the shade of our homes, and rummage through streetside rubbish. Despite their visible presence, FRDs are often discussed in opposition to domesticated dogs as a problem to be solved. This binary framing has shaped much of the discourse around dog population management in Fiji, where dogs are perceived as a valued companion if they are domesticated and as a pest if they are free-roaming.
The small number of FRDs who engage in aggressive behaviours are scapegoats for the wider population, often becoming the subject of sensationalist media coverage. Such media attention, indirectly influenced by colonial ideals of dog ownership, has shaped both public opinion and national legislation around dog population management. Interventions such as culling or baiting have been the historical approach taken over humane and sustainable population management strategies.
Part of the important work we do at Animals Fiji is tackling dog overpopulation through encouraging desexing and responsible ownership. We recognise that Fiji will never be a nation entirely free of FRDs. Accordingly, this article is not to diminish the importance of our ongoing clinical and research efforts, but rather calls to critique the colonial foundations that have shaped prevailing discourses surrounding FRDs. It encourages a more nuanced understanding of FRDs and acknowledges the potential benefits associated with roaming.
The spread of Britain’s colonial pursuits
The condemnation of FRDs as dangerous or pests can be dated back to British colonisation. Dogs have historically been bred for their usefulness to humans, including for hunting, sports, companionship, and protection. During their colonial pursuits, the British introduced ideas of dog superiority, particularly through the promotion of pedigreed, leashed, and owned dogs as the standard. In stark contrast, FRDs were deemed illegitimate and in need of human control.
Emerging forms of entertainment, such as dog shows and the Kennel Club, further cemented ideas of pedigree and ownership during mid-19th-century Britain. These standards spread throughout the British Empire, positioning indigenous and FRDs in colonies like India and Fiji as inferior due to their non-European origins.
This colonial legacy has had lasting effects. Even today, terms like ‘stray’ to describe FRDs continue to influence and reinforce societal attitudes. Yet the hypocrisy of this perspective is clear.
In the mid-20th century, it was domesticated pets, not strays, that were proven vectors of zoonotic diseases, like rabies that saw a resurgence in Britain post-WW1. (Noting Fiji remains proudly rabies-free to this day.) Despite this, health professionals, veterinarians, and journalists blamed strays for such disease transmission, arguing their mobility was a public health threat. This framing legitimised restrictive and inhumane interventions, including muzzling, dog taxes, impoundment, and culling campaigns.
West is not always best: A case study of India’s FRD
The advantages of free-roaming are often underrepresented in media and academia, instead centring largely on narratives of precarity, starvation, and poor health. India provides an instructive example of how postcolonial societies have grappled with the legacy of colonial dog control. With an estimated FRD population of between 59 and 62 million, India has been the focus of many international studies on dog population management. From these predominantly quantitative studies have emerged stories of human-dog bonds that challenge common perceptions.
In 2001, India revised legislation to replace the term “stray dogs” with “street dogs” and prohibited culling as a method of population management. This shift recognised the autonomous status of free-roaming street dogs, acknowledging their right to live freely without human ownership.
In contrast, many Western nations, including the United Kingdom, still euthanise strays that are not retrieved or rehomed within a certain period. This has perpetuated colonial ideas that dogs only have a right to life under strict human ownership. Although the United Kingdom is a global leader in animal welfare standards, its approach to managing strays stands in stark contrast to India’s recognition of canine autonomy.
India’s FRDs demonstrate a reality in which dogs can thrive without human control or subservience. Many exhibit exceptional resilience and adaptability, despite irregular access to food, water, or shelter. Research has shown that relationships between these animals and local communities often develop organically through the provision of food, water, and care. These human-dog bonds reveal the understated beauty in these everyday, positive interactions.
FRDs are not bound by the same regimented practices as domesticated dogs in the West, such as timed feeding, limited outdoor access, supervised play and leash restrictions. This human dependency reduces opportunities to develop problem-solving or social skills while simultaneously increasing the potential for reactivity. In contrast, FRDs choose where to sleep, when to eat, and with whom to interact, all while navigating complex environments. This is not to say that FRDs do not endure challenges unique to their circumstances, such as hunger, disease, traffic accidents, or cruelty. But these realities coexist alongside remarkable resilience and adaptability.
Towards a culture of mutual care
The way we think about dogs is partially socially constructed and requires a shift from colonial legacies that permeate contemporary attitudes. Fiji’s FRDs, like India’s street dogs, remind us that not all Western ideals of ownership and control are neatly applicable to a Fijian context. Rather than treating FRDs as a public nuisance, we can acknowledge their place in Fijian society.
For Animals Fiji, this shift is already underway. We continue to promote desexing, preventative veterinary care, and public education to improve welfare for all dogs, whether they are owned or free-roaming. Recognising FRDs as part of Fiji’s social landscape means accepting that their presence is not inherently negative. By fostering compassion, supporting humane management, and recognising the autonomy of FRD, we can begin to build a more inclusive understanding of coexistence that shifts away from outdated colonial narratives and towards relationships of mutual care between humans and dogs.
Want to make a difference? Desex your pet!
Desexing is the most effective and long term way to manage dog overpopulation. Animals Fiji is committed to subsidising every spay and neuter to ensure we desex as many animals as possible.
Animals Fiji operates clinics in Savusavu, Labasa, Nadi, and Lautoka to ensure our services are accessible to everyone. To book a desexing appointment, contact our Savusavu Clinic at 998-6253, Labasa 998-6250, Lautoka 998-2026 or Nadi Clinic on 993 6647 or visit our website at www.animalsfiji.org