That was the account given after a bear attack in eastern Turkey, where a livestock guardian dog named Kral intervened long enough for a child to survive.

The story was quickly framed as one of courage, loyalty and protection.
The dog became a hero. And yet elsewhere in Turkey, dogs continue disappearing from public streets under collection campaigns increasingly justified through the language of danger and public safety.

The contrast is becoming impossible to ignore.

In rural parts of Turkey, dogs are still openly recognised as essential. Livestock guardian dogs protect flocks from wolves and bears. Search dogs save lives after earthquakes. Police and military dogs are praised for discipline, intelligence and service. Family dogs are mourned deeply when lost.

But street dogs exist inside a completely different narrative.

The same society capable of celebrating a dog for saving a child’s life can also tolerate a climate where millions of free-roaming dogs are being confined and pushed in to euthanasia.

That contradiction reveals something uncomfortable about how animals are classified. Some are viewed as protectors, some are viewed as symbols of status,
some are viewed as useful and others become politically inconvenient.

The issue is no longer simply about dogs themselves. It is about perception. About which dogs are permitted value and visibility, and which are framed as disposable.

Kral disrupted that simplistic narrative

A dog capable of confronting bears to protect a child does not fit neatly into increasingly aggressive rhetoric surrounding dogs in modern Turkey. Neither do the countless community dogs that spend years living peacefully alongside residents before suddenly vanishing into systems the public rarely sees clearly.

The reality has always been more complicated than the headlines allow.

Dogs in Turkey are deeply woven into everyday life. They exist in villages, industrial areas, farms, ports, neighbourhoods and city streets. They guard, warn, accompany and coexist beside people every single day.

That coexistence has always been imperfect. But it also explains why the national conversation around dogs has become so emotionally charged. Because many people still know, from direct experience, what dogs are capable of giving back.

Kral is being celebrated today because he protected a child from bears.

Elsewhere, other dogs are still fighting simply to survive.

Share

Authorities in Kütahya say 18,600 stray dogs have now been collected. The figure was presented during an official coordination meeting as municipalities across Turkey continue accelerating street dog collection operations.

Official statements describe dogs being taken under protection, transferred to shelters or moved into natural living areas.

But as the numbers increase, so does public unease. Because across Turkish social media, people are beginning to ask a different question entirely:

“Where are the dogs?”

Under official announcements and local news posts, commenters repeatedly question

• which facilities are housing such large numbers

• whether sufficient shelter capacity actually exists

• where these so-called natural living areas are

• and why there is so little visible documentation showing the animals after collection.

Some commenters are now using another word, hoarding. That shift in language is significant because public perception changes once the numbers become this large. At small scale, people picture rescue. But when the figures reach into the tens of thousands, the questions become very different. People begin wondering whether animals on this scale can realistically receive proper veterinary care, enough space, adequate sanitation, disease control, behavioural support, exercise, nutrition and any meaningful quality of life at all.

The concern is no longer simply whether dogs were removed from the streets. It becomes whether systems managing such enormous numbers can genuinely provide humane long-term care.

Dog Desk Animal Action has seen first-hand what some so-called natural living areas can become in reality. The phrase creates an image of safety, open space and humane care, but the reality on the ground can look very different. Large numbers of stressed dogs confined together, worsening disease pressure, inadequate infrastructure, mud, overcrowding and animals gradually disappearing from public visibility altogether.

Authorities have publicly announced that 18,600 dogs have been collected. Yet publicly available reporting still does not clearly explain where those dogs are now, which facilities are holding them, how much actual capacity exists inside the system, what the mortality rates are, how many animals have been adopted, or whether independent inspections are taking place.

Once thousands of dogs disappear from public streets into systems the public cannot properly see, monitor or verify, the debate changes completely. The conversation stops being simply about collection and starts becoming a wider question about what separates genuine protection from confinement, warehousing and institutional-scale hoarding.

Share

A decision linked to the Sivas Governorship Animal Protection Board is drawing growing concern from animal welfare advocates in Turkey after campaigners claimed the board endorsed the euthanasia of street animals under Article 13 of Turkey’s Animal Protection Law No. 5199.

According to activists, the board met on April 16, 2026. Since then, campaign graphics, petitions, and social media posts have circulated alleging that the meeting resulted in a decision supporting euthanasia measures for animals considered dangerous, incurably ill, or carrying infectious diseases.

What Does the Decision Actually Say?

The wording being shared online references animals:

• considered a danger to humans or other animals

• suffering from uncontrolled infectious disease

• or deemed incurably ill.

The text also refers to animals housed within municipal care facilities or nursing homes, a term often used in Turkish translations to describe shelters or rehabilitation centres.

While campaign graphics have described the outcome as a decision to euthanise street animals, the legal wording itself appears more closely tied to the euthanasia exceptions already contained within Turkey’s current legal framework.

Turkey’s amended animal legislation allows euthanasia under certain limited conditions involving public safety and severe medical cases. Critics, however, argue that vague definitions and inconsistent oversight create the risk of much broader interpretation in practice.

Why Animal Welfare Groups Are Concerned

For many advocates, the concern is not simply the wording of Article 13 itself, but how it may be implemented on the ground. Questions repeatedly raised by campaigners include:

• Who decides a dog is dangerous?

• Are behavioural assessments being carried out individually?

• What independent oversight exists?

• Can overcrowded municipal shelters safely rehabilitate animals?

• And are dogs being fairly evaluated before irreversible decisions are made?

These concerns have intensified across Turkey since the 2024 changes to Law 5199 accelerated the removal of free-roaming dogs from the streets into municipal shelter systems.

Animal welfare organisations have repeatedly warned that shelter capacity, staffing, veterinary resources, and transparency vary dramatically between municipalities.

A Wider National Debate

The Sivas controversy is unfolding against the backdrop of one of the most divisive animal welfare debates Turkey has faced in years.

Supporters of stricter measures argue authorities must address public safety concerns, dog attacks, and disease control.

Opponents argue that the country is moving away from sterilise-vaccinate-return programmes without having the infrastructure required to humanely manage the consequences of mass collection policies.

For many campaigners, the fear is that once dogs disappear into closed shelter systems, public oversight becomes limited. That is why local board decisions like the one reported in Sivas are receiving intense scrutiny.

Calls for Transparency

At the time of writing, the full official Sivas board resolution does not appear to have been publicly released through an accessible government archive. Much of the information circulating comes through campaign groups, petitions, and translated excerpts shared online.

Advocates are now calling for:

• publication of the full decision

• clarification on how Article 13 will be interpreted locally

• transparent veterinary assessment procedures

• and guarantees against indiscriminate euthanasia.

As debate continues, one issue remains central, how these legal provisions are interpreted in practice may determine the fate of thousands of street animals across Turkey.

Share

In İzmir’s Çiğli district Turkey, a woman was assaulted, threatened, and targeted by neighbours because she cared for street cats living around her apartment building. According to statements, threats were allegedly made not only against the cats, but against the woman herself and her visually impaired brother.

This is not simply a dispute about feeding animals. It is about what happens when hostility toward animals begins normalising hostility toward humans too.

The woman stated that an apartment manager’s tried to force entry into her home and assaulted her. Witnesses also alleged threats were made to kill the cats. One reported threat referenced her disabled brother directly, allegedly saying: “Your brother is blind, shall we make one of you crippled too?”

The allegations are deeply serious. And they reflect something increasingly visible across Turkey’s current atmosphere surrounding street animals: the collapse of social restraint.

Animal Hatred Does Not Stay Contained

One of the most dangerous misunderstandings in public discourse is the idea that violence toward animals exists separately from wider patterns of aggression.

Criminology research has repeatedly shown links between animal cruelty, intimidation, coercive behaviour, and broader violent tendencies. While not every person hostile toward animals becomes violent toward people, societies that normalise cruelty toward vulnerable beings often begin tolerating intimidation more generally.

That is what makes stories like this alarming. The threats here moved rapidly beyond complaints about cats themselves:

• Threats directed toward a disabled family member

• Attempts to isolate and pressure the woman socially

• Removal/disappearance of cats

• Efforts to force her from her home

• Public targeting within the apartment environment

This is the language of domination, exclusion, and fear.

“The Cats Are The Problem” Is Becoming A Dangerous Social Cover

Across Turkey over the last year, public rhetoric surrounding street animals has become increasingly aggressive. Terms implying infestation, contamination, danger, or cleansing have entered mainstream discussions. In some environments, hostility toward feeders and carers now appears socially acceptable in ways that would once have been shocking. That matters. Because once a group of people become labelled as obstacles, nuisances, or enemies for showing compassion, harassment becomes easier to justify socially.

The woman at the centre of this case stated she kept the area clean and that the cats could not realistically disturb other residents due to the layout of the property.

But by that stage, this no longer appeared to be about hygiene or practical concerns. It appeared to become about punishment.

The Disappearance Of The Cats Should Alarm Authorities

One of the most disturbing aspects of the reports is that multiple cats were removed and their whereabouts withheld. One witness claimed that 11 cats had been taken away after discussions among residents.

This cannot simply be dismissed as neighbour disputes.

When animals disappear in hostile environments where threats have already been made, authorities should be treating this seriously.

Because violence toward animals often escalates gradually:

• verbal hostility

• intimidation

• threats

• disappearance/removal

• direct harm

Intervention matters before escalation reaches the final stages.

Feeding Animals Is Being Reframed As Provocation

Perhaps one of the bleakest developments in modern Turkey is that feeding a hungry animal is increasingly portrayed by some people as antisocial behaviour deserving retaliation. This represents a profound moral shift.

For decades, care for street animals formed part of everyday social life across many Turkish communities. Elderly women feeding cats outside apartment blocks was not considered radical behaviour. It was ordinary.

Now, in some environments, compassion itself appears to be treated as provocation. That should worry everyone. Because societies become dangerous very quickly when empathy is recast as weakness deserving punishment.

This Needs Proper Investigation

If the allegations reported are accurate, this case requires serious investigation not only regarding assault and threats, but regarding the fate of the missing cats. Authorities should identify:

• what happened to the animals

• whether criminal intimidation occurred

• whether disability-related threats were made

• whether organised harassment took place

• whether laws protecting animals were violated

Because these incidents are never just about cats. They are warning signs about social behaviour, aggression, and the erosion of restraint inside ordinary residential environments.

And once societies normalise cruelty toward the vulnerable, the circle of who counts as acceptable targets rarely stays small for long.

Share

A political figure recently made a series of statements about Turkey’s street dogs that reveal just how far the rhetoric surrounding animals has shifted.

At first glance, the comments appear to focus on public safety.

The gentleman described stray dogs as dangerous, claimed they form gangs, referenced attacks on children and vulnerable people, and argued that municipalities have failed to remove dogs from the streets despite legal changes.

But the most revealing part of the statement was not about dogs themselves. It was about language.

Best Friend And Pawed Friend Are Threats

The gentleman argued that terms such as can dost (soul companion or best friend) and patili dost (pawed friend) are part of a deliberate effort to humanise dogs and equate them with children.

He reportedly claimed this rhetoric targets the Turkish family structure and described it as a form of ideological manipulation which comes from the way people overseas perceive dogs.

Even the word mama (food) was criticised because of its linguistic association with baby food and infant formula.

This is no longer simply an argument about public safety or urban animal management.

It is an attempt to delegitimise emotional attachment itself.

The Language Of Care Is Becoming A Target

What makes these statements so striking is that ordinary expressions of affection toward animals are increasingly being reframed as socially dangerous.

Not dangerous because dogs exist. But dangerous because people care about them.

The implication is that calling a dog a friend, feeding a dog, mourning a dog,
or viewing a dog as emotionally significant somehow threatens social order.

That represents a profound cultural shift.

Because historically, humans describing animals as companions has been entirely normal across societies and generations including Turkey.

Yet now, the language of companionship itself is being treated with suspicion.

From Public Safety To Moral Ideology

This is why many outside Turkey misunderstand what is happening. They still interpret the debate as purely about bites, rabies, or free-roaming dog populations.

But increasingly, the rhetoric surrounding dogs has moved into moral and ideological territory.

The issue is no longer only how should street dogs be managed It is becoming
what kinds of emotional bonds are acceptable in society?

That is a very different conversation. And once compassion itself becomes politicised, hostility toward animals becomes easier to justify socially, culturally, and politically.

Language shapes moral perception.

When emotional attachment to animals is repeatedly framed as irrational, foreign-influenced, anti-family, or socially corrosive, the public is gradually encouraged to emotionally distance itself from suffering.

That matters during periods of aggressive collection campaigns and intensified anti-dog rhetoric. Because societies rarely move toward harsher treatment of vulnerable beings without first changing the language surrounding them.

And increasingly, that linguistic shift is happening in plain sight.

Share

This week a Turkish newspaper reported that a Bosch Turkey Mother’s Day advertisement was removed after backlash from pro-government media and political figures. The advert showed two women discussing their children before revealing they were talking about their dogs.

The newspaper reportedly framed the advert as child instead of dog propaganda, accusing it of undermining the family structure. RTÜK launched an investigation. Bosch withdrew it.

Think about what that means for a moment.

A woman calling her dog her child is now treated as a cultural threat serious enough to provoke state scrutiny.

We Will Not Allow Value Erosion Through The Concept Of Family

According to Turkish media reports, RTÜK ( Radio and Television Supreme Council) President Mehmet Daniş defended the investigation with the statement:

“We will not allow value erosion through the concept of family on screens.”

That sentence reveals the deeper issue beneath this controversy.

A Mother’s Day advert featuring women speaking affectionately about their dogs was not treated merely as marketing. It was framed as something capable of undermining social values and family structure itself.

That is a remarkable cultural shift. Not because people disliked an advert. Public criticism of advertising is normal. But because emotional attachment to animals is increasingly being discussed in ideological terms, as though love, care, and companionship themselves have become politically sensitive subjects.

The Real Argument Is No Longer About Dogs

This is why so many people outside Turkey misunderstand what is happening there.

They still imagine the conflict is only about stray dog management or public safety policy. But increasingly, the language surrounding dogs has become ideological. Emotional attachment itself is becoming politicised.

The argument is no longer simply how should free-roaming dogs be managed. It is becoming what kinds of emotional bonds are acceptable?

That is a very different thing. Because once affection toward animals is framed as socially suspicious, morally corrupting, anti-family, anti-human, or culturally dangerous, hostility toward animals becomes easier to justify.

Empathy itself starts being treated as deviance.

The Slow Criminalisation Of Compassion

You can already see the shift happening. People who feed dogs are portrayed as irresponsible. People who defend dogs are mocked as irrational.
Women attached to animals are framed as psychologically damaged or replacing children. Compassion is recast as weakness. Care becomes something to ridicule.

The Bosch advert backlash did not happen in isolation. It emerged in a climate where family values, falling birth rates, nationalism, and hostility toward street dogs are increasingly being woven together into one political narrative.

Humans Have Always Loved Animals Deeply

But humans have always formed profound attachments with animals.

People grieve them, talk to them, sleep beside them, structure their routines around them, risk their lives for them & build entire emotional worlds around them.

None of this is new. None of it is pathological. And none of it threatens society.

What is actually dangerous is the attempt to police emotional life itself. Because history shows that societies which become comfortable mocking empathy often become comfortable with far worse things afterwards.

What This Story Really Reveals

The most revealing part of this entire story is not that some people disliked the advert. It is that a multinational company immediately folded under pressure. That tells you how hostile the environment has become.

An advert suggesting a dog can be loved like family was apparently considered more controversial than the daily suffering of real animals. And that says far more about modern society than the advert ever did.

Share

A new statement issued by the Istanbul Governorship following the latest Animal Protection Board meeting has made one thing unmistakably clear: authorities want the public to understand that street dog collection efforts are continuing and that pressure on municipalities is not easing.

The wording of the announcement is striking.

The statement was issued in response to news reports and social media posts claiming the Governor’s Office had taken a step back on the street animal issue.

The response from the Governorship was firm.

It stated there could be no complacency or retreat on the issue and emphasised that municipalities would continue to be closely monitored to ensure obligations under the law are strictly fulfilled.

Taken together, the language strongly suggests officials wanted to make clear that enforcement and collection efforts are not slowing down following the meeting.

And the measures outlined in the statement reinforce that impression.

Municipalities are being instructed to:

• accelerate shelter and natural habitat projects,

• conduct monthly stray dog inventories,

• submit data centrally through HAYBİS,

• increase capacity,

• and continue gathering dogs into designated facilities.

Pendik and Tuzla are specifically referenced as districts where collection infrastructure is being completed so dogs can be gathered there.

Municipalities that fail to allocate required funding are also warned about possible legal sanctions.

But beneath the enforcement language sits a question that remains unanswered publicly:

Where will all the dogs actually go?

This is why many welfare concerns are now focusing less on the language of collection itself and more on the practical reality of what happens after dogs disappear from public view.

The statement also includes measures aimed at preventing illegal abandonment of dogs, including involvement from security and gendarmerie units.

Preventing abandonment matters. Deliberately dumping dogs into different districts has long contributed to instability and suffering.

But another omission from the statement is equally striking:

There is virtually no meaningful discussion of sterilisation

No large-scale sterilisation framework is outlined.
No expansion of neutering capacity is announced.
No long-term breeding prevention strategy is explained.

Instead, the overwhelming focus is on:

• collection,

• monitoring,

• construction,

• enforcement,

• and transfer into facilities.

That creates a fundamental contradiction.

Because a city cannot permanently reduce a street dog population through collection alone while new litters continue entering the system.

If breeding continues, intake pressure continues.

The pipeline keeps refilling.

This is the issue at the centre of growing concern among many animal welfare observers and advocates.

The latest statement confirms acceleration.

It confirms monitoring.

It confirms pressure on municipalities.

But it leaves the most important long-term questions unresolved.

Where will the dogs go?

How will humane conditions be maintained at this scale?

And if sterilisation is not central to the strategy, how does the cycle ever actually end?

Share

Credit En Son Haber

For weeks, concern has been growing across Istanbul as street dog collections intensified and pressure mounted to remove dogs from public spaces before the end of May.

Then came the agenda that shocked animal welfare advocates across Turkey.

At today’s Istanbul Provincial Animal Protection Board meeting, agenda items reportedly included discussion around the removal of dogs living on university campuses and, most alarmingly, discussion of euthanasia for dogs held inside municipal shelters.

The reaction was immediate.

Lawyers, animal rights defenders, campaigners, NGOs and ordinary citizens pushed back publicly and loudly against the inclusion of euthanasia on the agenda.

Questions spread rapidly across social media:

Where would thousands of collected dogs go?
Was there enough space?
What happens when shelters become overcrowded?
What protections exist once dogs disappear behind municipal walls?

People refused to stay silent.

Nimet Özdemir speaks for the dogs - credit Nimet Özdemir

The Euthanasia Item Was Removed

And then something important happened.

The euthanasia-related agenda item along with the university collection item was removed from the meeting agenda following public backlash.

That matters. Not because the danger has disappeared. It has not.

But because it demonstrates something many people lose sight of during moments like this:

People power still works.

Public pressure forced attention onto the issue. Attention created scrutiny. Scrutiny created political discomfort. And political discomfort forced a retreat from openly discussing euthanasia measures inside one of Turkey’s most important provincial meetings on animal policy.

Without public resistance, these discussions may have passed quietly and largely unnoticed outside official rooms.

Instead, the issue became public. And once the public is watching, governments know they are being watched too.

Lawyer Ezgi Koçeylan, a member of the Istanbul Bar Association's Animal Rights Center speaks credit Cumhuriyet

The Wider Concerns Have Not Gone Away

This does not mean concerns are over.

Dogs are still being collected across Istanbul at speed. Serious questions remain about municipal shelter capacity, transparency, welfare standards and the long-term fate of dogs removed from the streets.

Those questions have not gone away simply because wording was removed from an agenda.

If anything, today showed just how real those concerns had become.

The fact euthanasia discussions appeared on the agenda at all is why so many people reacted with alarm in the first place.

Many advocates remain deeply concerned about what happens when large-scale collections continue without clear long-term solutions or visible shelter capacity at the scale required.

Credit Journalist Umut Taştan

Why Public Pressure Matters

This is why advocacy matters.

Not because every battle is won immediately. Not because governments suddenly reverse course overnight. But because sustained public attention makes it harder for dangerous decisions to happen quietly and without accountability.

Every petition signature matters.
Every article matters.
Every lawyer speaking publicly matters.
Every protest matters.
Every person refusing to look away matters.

Today showed that pressure can force authorities to step back at least publicly when scrutiny becomes too large to ignore.

Humane Reform Must Mean More Than Collection

At Dog Desk Animal Action, we continue to believe the future of Turkey’s street dogs cannot be solved through panic-driven collection policies, overcrowded confinement or systems that place dogs at risk once removed from the streets they know.

Humane reform requires:

• sterilisation

• vaccination

• lawful protection

• transparency

• proper welfare oversight

• and realistic long-term planning.

Most importantly, it requires continued public scrutiny. Because when the public stops watching, accountability often disappears with it.

Sign Our Petition

If you have not yet signed our petition calling for humane reform and opposing Turkey’s slaughter law, you can do so here:

Repeal Turkey’s Slaughter Law Petition

Today proved something important. When enough people push back, governments notice even in the most sensitive political climates.

Share

Across parts of Turkey, provincial animal protection decisions are beginning to reflect a clearer direction in how certain dogs are being classified and managed.

Within that direction is a critical reference that changes the meaning of everything around it:

“Article 13, paragraph 1 of the law shall be implemented.”

That is where this stops being procedural. Because Article 13 is not about management. It is about whether animals may be euthanised.

What the Law Actually Allows

Under Animal Protection Law No. 5199, the position is clear, animals cannot be killed. There are exceptions, but they are narrow and specific.

If an animal:

• poses a danger to human or animal health

• displays behaviour that cannot be controlled

• or suffers from untreatable disease

then euthanasia may be carried out. Not automatically. Not as a category. Only if it is necessary, and only with veterinary justification.

That wording matters. Because may is not the same as will.

Who Is Being Affected

Within the same decision, there is another restriction. Dogs considered:

• dangerous

• behaviourally problematic

• or belonging to prohibited categories

cannot be adopted out. In practice, this includes bull breeds. Dogs that are often identified not through formal behavioural assessment, but through physical characteristics, how they look.

And that distinction matters more than it should.

When Appearance Replaces Assessment

These are not dogs that have been individually assessed and found to pose a risk.

In many cases, they are being identified by breed type and appearance, rather than documented behaviour or clinical condition. That is where the process begins to shift.

From individual evaluation to categorisation. And once that shift happens, the outcome is no longer determined by evidence.

It is determined by classification.

What Should Be Happening and What Isn’t Visible

For Article 13 to be applied lawfully, there should be:

• individual veterinary assessments

• documented behavioural evaluations

• a clear justification of necessity for each dog

But where those elements are not visible, the safeguard built into the law is no longer functioning as intended. It is absent. And without that safeguard, the distinction between a specific risk and a presumed risk begins to disappear.

Why This Creates Real Risk

When you combine:

• classification based on appearance

• no adoption pathway

• no ability to leave the system

• and increasing pressure on shelter capacity

the outcome narrows quickly. Because if dogs cannot be:

• adopted

• transferred

• or individually reassessed

then the system is left with fewer and fewer options. And under those conditions, the invocation of Article 13 takes on a different weight. Not as an exception. But as a potential endpoint.

The Question That Needs Answering

If these dogs are not being individually assessed and if their classification is based primarily on how they look on what basis will decisions about their lives be made?

Because the law requires evidence. It requires necessity. It requires individual judgement. Without those, the process is no longer what the law describes.

Why This Matters Beyond One Shelter

This is not only about one decision, or one location. It reflects a broader issue that is well recognised globally, bull breeds are often judged first by appearance, and only later if at all by behaviour.

In most systems, that leads to longer stays, lower adoption rates and higher risk outcomes

When legal safeguards are weakened or bypassed, that risk increases significantly.

What Comes Next

At this stage, the focus is not speculation. It is clarity.

Clarity on:

• whether individual assessments are being carried out

• how Article 13 is being interpreted in practice

• and what plans exist for dogs that currently have no visible exit pathway

Because one point remains unchanged:

Without individual assessment, Article 13 cannot be applied properly.

And without that process, decisions about these dogs are no longer evidence-based they are predetermined.

Share

A directive has been issued in Istanbul. Not guidance. Not discussion. A deadline.

The Istanbul Governorship, under Governor Davut Gül, has instructed municipalities to accelerate the collection of stray dogs and bring the situation under control by the end of May.

Municipalities that fail to comply face legal consequences.

The Order

Dogs are being removed from the streets. This is not a proposal. It is already happening at scale, across districts, and at increasing speed.

The instruction is clear:

• Collection must accelerate

• Delays are no longer acceptable

• The process must be completed within a defined timeframe

The endpoint is just weeks away.

The Scale

Turkey’s stray dog population is measured in the millions. Even conservative estimates place it far beyond anything a municipal shelter system was ever designed to absorb.

At the same time, national figures indicate that hundreds of thousands and now over a million dogs have already been collected.

That matters.

Because it shows two things at once:

• The policy is being enforced

• The system is already under strain

The Capacity Gap

The law requires that dogs removed from the streets are placed in shelters. That is the central mechanism. But capacity does not match the requirement.

Estimated shelter space across the country sits at around 100,000–110,000 places.

Against a population in the millions, the gap is not marginal it is structural.

Even if every available space were used efficiently, the system cannot absorb the number of dogs being removed.

And the directive does not slow down to account for that. It accelerates.

What the Law Allows

Under the amended legal framework, euthanasia is permitted. Not universally. Not explicitly as a blanket policy. But it is allowed under defined conditions:

• Dogs deemed aggressive

• Dogs assessed as dangerous

• Dogs considered incurably ill

The problem is not only that these categories exist. It is that they are not tightly defined.

They leave room for interpretation. And interpretation changes under pressure.

The Pressure Point

This is where the situation stops being theoretical. Because the policy does not operate in isolation. It operates as a combination:

• Rapid, enforced collection

• Limited and already strained capacity

• Legal permission for euthanasia under broad criteria

Individually, each element can be explained. Together, they create a bottleneck. Dogs are being removed faster than they can be housed.

They cannot be returned to the streets. Adoption pathways are limited. The system has no visible expansion at the scale required, not within the timeframe given.

So the question is not whether pressure exists. It is what happens when that pressure peaks.

The Contradiction

The same directive pushing for rapid collection acknowledges a critical issue, infrastructure is not ready.

New shelter sites have been identified. Some land has been allocated. But construction is incomplete, and in many cases, not yet started. That leaves a gap between instruction and capacity.

And it is not a small gap. It is the difference between policy and reality.

What Is Being Asked And What Is Not Being Answered

The order is clear, remove the dogs. The law is clear, keep them in shelters.

But the system does not answer the most basic question, where will they all go?

Not in theory, not eventually, now at the scale being enforced.

Within the deadline that has been set.

Why Concerns About Euthanasia Are Growing

Concerns are not emerging in isolation. They are being raised by:

• Animal welfare organisations

• Legal analysts

• Observers tracking implementation on the ground

The concern is not based on one clause. It is based on the structure as a whole.

When:

• Intake exceeds capacity

• Holding is mandatory

• Release is no longer permitted

• And euthanasia exists within the legal framework

Then the outcome does not need to be stated outright to be understood as a risk.

The Reality

This is not about rhetoric, it is about mechanics. A system is being asked to process numbers it cannot physically hold. A deadline has been imposed that does not reflect infrastructure.

And the only flexible variable inside that system is how individual dogs are classified.

The Question That Remains

Istanbul has been given a deadline. The streets must be cleared.

But the destination for those dogs at this scale, within this timeframe has not been demonstrated. Until that is answered clearly, concerns will not go away.

Because they are not based on assumption. They are based on what happens when policy, pressure, and capacity collide.

And when they do, outcomes are rarely neutral.

Share

There is a line in this story that should stop everything:

Dogs, kept in a shelter facility, were so hungry they ate the body of another dead dog.

That is not a stray dog problem. That is not a behaviour problem.

That is a system failing in plain sight.

What Actually Happened

In Adıyaman, dogs collected from the streets were placed in what is described as a natural living area in a shelter owned by the municipality

But according to those who filmed and reported it:

• The dogs were not adequately fed

• They were kept together in uncontrolled conditions

• They were left hungry for extended periods

• And eventually, out of sheer survival, they consumed the body of a dead dog

Let’s be very clear about what that means.

This is not aggression. This is not dangerous dogs.

This is starvation.

The Lie Hidden in Plain Sight

Stories like this are incredibly useful to a certain narrative.

Because if you show starving animals behaving in extreme ways, you can present that behaviour as proof that they are the problem.

“Look what they do.”
“Look how dangerous they are.”
“Look why they need controlling.”

But what you are actually looking at is what happens when living beings are denied food, care, and basic welfare.

You are not witnessing danger. You are witnessing neglect reaching its logical end point.

They Were Not Stray in That Moment

This is the part that should anger you. These dogs were no longer on the street.

They were in a facility. Collected. Contained. Controlled. Which means responsibility had already shifted. They were under human management.

And under that management:

• They were not fed properly

• They were not monitored properly

• They were not protected from each other

• They were allowed to reach a state where survival instincts took over

So when people try to frame this as a stray dog issue, it is simply false.

This happened inside a system that claims to protect them.

Starvation Is Not an Accident

Dogs do not reach that level of hunger overnight.

This is not a missed meal. This is not a delay. This is sustained deprivation.

It takes time to push animals to the point where they will consume the dead to survive.

Which means there were opportunities to intervene. Repeatedly.

And those opportunities were ignored.

Rehabilitation Without Care Is Just Containment

There is a recurring pattern:

• Dogs are collected from the streets

• They are placed in large facilities

• The facilities are labelled “natural,” “rehabilitation,” or “shelter”

• And then the reality inside those spaces is hidden until something breaks

What you are seeing here is what happens when capacity replaces care. When numbers matter more than welfare.

The Real Risk to Public Safety

This is where the narrative completely collapses. Because if you want to talk about danger, then be honest about where it actually sits.

The risk is not a dog on a street. The risk is a system that:

• Removes animals from communities

• Concentrates them into overcrowded environments

• Fails to meet their basic needs

• And then allows suffering to escalate unchecked

That is where instability is created. Not on the street. Inside the system.

What This Story Should Have Said

It should have said:

Animals placed in a government-linked facility were starved to the point of extreme survival behaviour.

It should have asked:

• Who is responsible for feeding them?

• What budget was allocated?

• How many animals are being held there?

• What oversight exists?

Instead, these stories often drift toward shock value, the imagery, the reaction without confronting the structure that created it.

Final Thought

Dogs do not choose to eat the dead. They choose to survive.

If survival leads them there, it is because every other option has been taken away.

So the question is not:

“What is wrong with these dogs?”

It is:

Who put them in a position where this was the only outcome left?

Until that question is answered honestly, this will keep happening hidden behind labels like rehabilitation, softened by language, and blamed on the very animals that were failed.

Share

For years, one figure dominated public discussion in Türkiye:

Around 4 million stray dogs.

It appeared in media reporting, political statements, and policy debates. It shaped public perception and helped frame the issue as urgent, large-scale, and increasingly unmanageable.

Now, a very different claim has emerged from Ahmet Yavuz Karaca:

The real number is closer to 1–1.5 million. That is not a minor correction. It is a reduction of up to 75%.

And it raises a question that cannot be ignored:

What changed?

The Scale of the Shift

A population does not collapse by millions without leaving evidence.

If Türkiye’s stray dog population had genuinely dropped from around 4 million to 1–1.5 million, we would expect to see:

• Large-scale, sustained sterilisation at high coverage

• Clear declines recorded across municipalities

• Transparent national datasets tracking the reduction

None of this has been publicly presented.

There has been no published, verifiable dataset showing a population collapse of that scale.

The More Likely Explanation

When a number changes this dramatically, there are only a few realistic explanations:

1) The original figure was never robust

The 4 million estimate was widely repeated, but:

• It was not backed by a national census

• It lacked clear methodology

• It was often presented without source transparency

In simple terms, it was an estimate that became accepted through repetition.

2) The new figure is based on a different method but not disclosed

Karaca refers to studies producing more realistic data.

But without:

• Methodology

• Sampling framework

• Geographic coverage

• Margin of error

the new estimate cannot be independently assessed.

3) The narrative has shifted

Population figures do not exist in isolation. They shape and are shaped by policy.

• A higher number supports urgency and large-scale intervention

• A lower number suggests the issue is more contained, more manageable

Both can be used to justify different approaches.

Without transparency, the risk is that the number becomes a policy tool rather than a measured reality.

Evidence of Reduction

If the population has truly decreased, there should be supporting indicators:

• Increased sterilisation coverage approaching 70%

• Reduced intake pressure across shelters

• Fewer births observed in known dog populations

Instead, available information points to:

• Low sterilisation coverage

• Continued pressure on municipal systems

• Ongoing reports of uncontrolled reproduction

These conditions are not consistent with a population that has dropped by millions.

Why This Matters

This is not just about numbers. It is about credibility and decision-making.

When figures shift dramatically without explanation:

• Public trust is weakened

• Policy justification becomes unclear

• Effective solutions are harder to implement

Because if the scale of the problem is uncertain, the response will be too.

The Question That Needs Answering

If the number was truly 4 million for years:

• On what basis was that figure used?

• Why was it accepted without transparent data?

And if the number is now 1–1.5 million:

• What methodology produced it?

• Where is the dataset?

• Why has it not been published for scrutiny?

The Reality

Two conflicting figures now exist:

• A long-standing estimate of around 4 million

• A new claim of 1–1.5 million

Neither has been supported with a fully transparent, independently verifiable national dataset.

The Conclusion

This is not simply a correction. It is a fundamental inconsistency. And until Türkiye provides:

• Clear methodology

• Full population data

• Independent verification

the issue is not whether the number is 4 million or 1 million. It is that the system producing these numbers remains opaque.

Because when figures can shift this dramatically without explanation,
the problem is no longer just the dogs.

It is the data itself.

Share

A recent statement attributed to Ahmet Yavuz Karaca advisor to the Minister of Interior, suggests that the long-standing sterilise, vaccinate, and release (SVR/CNVR) approach did not achieve the expected results, and that newer regulatory measures are proving more effective.

It is a significant claim.

But before accepting it, there is a more fundamental question to address:

Was the method ever implemented at the scale required to succeed?

What the Scientific Literature Actually Shows

Across peer-reviewed research in Veterinary epidemiology, the core findings are consistent:

• Sterilisation reduces population growth at its source

• Vaccination is the primary tool for controlling rabies transmission

• Combined CNVR/SVR programmes are associated with long-term population stabilisation and gradual decline, particularly when coverage is high and sustained

A systematic review published in Preventive Veterinary Medicine (Totton et al., 2010, with later supporting studies) concluded that:

• Outcomes depend heavily on coverage, consistency, and duration

• Programmes typically require around 70% reach to produce measurable population effects

These conclusions have been reinforced by subsequent modelling and field studies over the past decade.

What Happens When It Is Done Properly

Evidence from real-world programmes provides context:

• Jaipur, India
  Long-term CNVR implementation has been associated with:

  • Reduced dog-bite incidence

  • Improved rabies control

• Lucknow, India
  When sterilisation and vaccination approached ~70% coverage:

  • Population growth slowed

  • Public health indicators improved

• Bhutan (national programme)
  Sustained, high-coverage sterilisation and vaccination contributed to:

  • Significant progress toward rabies elimination

These are not isolated cases. They are frequently cited in international guidance from organisations such as WOAH and the ICAM Coalition.

What the Available Figures Indicate

Publicly reported figures provide important context when assessing implementation.

• Approximately 2.5 million dogs are reported to have been sterilised over the past two decades

• Annual sterilisation levels have generally been in the hundreds of thousands

• The highest reported annual figure is approximately 342,879 in 2023

At the same time, widely cited estimates place the free-roaming dog population in the millions.

Set against the scientific benchmark where around 70% coverage is typically required to stabilise and reduce populations these figures suggest that:

Sterilisation efforts, while ongoing, may not have reached the level necessary to produce population-wide effects.

This distinction is important when interpreting outcomes.

The Question of Implementation

A consistent finding across the literature is that partial implementation produces partial results.

Where programmes appear ineffective, studies commonly identify:

• Insufficient sterilisation coverage

• Interrupted or inconsistent delivery

• Limited geographic reach

• Resource constraints

Under those conditions, it becomes difficult to assess the method itself, because the threshold required for success has not been reached.

The Role of Non-Governmental Efforts

In many regions, including Turkey, a significant proportion of sterilisation and vaccination work has been funded by:

• Veterinary professionals

• Local volunteers

• Animal welfare organisations

These efforts are critical and often highly effective at a local level.

However, the research is clear on one point:

Population-level outcomes require population-level coverage.

Non-governmental groups can support, supplement, and innovate but they are rarely resourced to deliver nationwide, sustained implementation alone.

How Effectiveness Is Measured

The term effective can mean different things depending on the metric:

• A rapid reduction in visible street dogs

• A long-term decline in population size

• Improvements in animal welfare

• Reductions in public health risks such as rabies

Scientific studies typically evaluate effectiveness over longer timeframes, particularly where fertility control is involved, because the mechanism is gradual rather than immediate.

The Importance of Transparent Data

Assessing any population management strategy depends on:

• Reliable baseline estimates

• Ongoing population monitoring

• Clear reporting of outcomes

Where comprehensive datasets are not publicly available, it becomes more difficult to draw firm conclusions about comparative effectiveness.

What the Evidence Supports

Based on the current body of research:

• Sterilisation and vaccination are well-established components of effective dog population management

• CNVR/SVR programmes have demonstrated positive outcomes in multiple peer-reviewed studies and field applications

• Success depends on scale, consistency, and duration, rather than short-term interventions

A Measured Conclusion

It is reasonable to review and refine policy approaches. It is also reasonable to ask whether previous strategies delivered the intended results.

But the scientific literature suggests a more precise interpretation:

Where sterilisation and vaccination programmes do not reach sufficient coverage, their impact will be limited.

This does not necessarily indicate that the method itself is ineffective,
only that the conditions required for success may not have been fully met.

Final Line

Before concluding that a long-established, evidence-based approach has failed, the key question remains:

Was it ever implemented at the scale required to demonstrate what the science says it can achieve?

Without that clarity, comparisons between approaches remain incomplete and the evidence base remains unchanged.

Share

In the Grand National Assembly of Turkey commission session, officials state that around 78% of street dogs have been collected .

That is a national claim.

Now place it alongside the most concrete, publicly available data on capacity:

• 273 municipalities out of 1,111 respondents have at least one shelter
  → roughly 25% coverage

• Earlier estimates:

  • 237 municipalities out of ~1,400

• Repeated sector and parliamentary references:

  • ~322 shelter facilities nationwide

  • ~105,000 total capacity (commonly cited between ~89,000–115,000)

Even at the upper end, the system can hold around one hundred thousand animals.

At the same time, official and semi-official figures refer to hundreds of thousands of dogs collected.

Those figures do not reconcile.

The Dispute Is Not Outside the System It Is Inside It

This is not just an external criticism.

Inside the same TBMM session, those figures are directly challenged.

MP Nimet Özdemir, using ministry data, points to a gap:

• 452,587 dogs collected

• 239,466 sterilised

• 58,802 adopted

Leaving at least 149,785 animals unaccounted for.

Her question is simple:

Where are they?

That question is not answered.

Competing Claims About Public Health

The justification for large-scale collection is framed as public health and safety.

But this is also challenged inside the same session.

Opposition arguments include:

• Removing vaccinated, sterilised street dogs creates a vacuum effect

• Unvaccinated animals move in from rural and forest areas

• This may increase, not reduce, zoonotic disease risk

At the same time, concerns are raised that:

• overcrowded environments lead to disease spread and mortality

• disruption of street populations alters ecological balance

These are not fringe claims.

They are being made on the parliamentary record.

The System Problem

Strip everything back, and the issue becomes structural:

A system that:

• removes animals at scale

• operates across hundreds of municipalities

• relies on limited and uneven infrastructure

must be able to track outcomes clearly.

Yet there is no comprehensive, publicly available dataset that accounts for:

• total intake

• current population in care

• verified adoptions

• transfers

• deaths or losses

Instead, there are:

• percentages

• presentations

• partial figures

The Numbers Still Do Not Resolve

Even if every available shelter space were filled:

• capacity: ~100,000

• claimed collections: hundreds of thousands

A substantial number of animals remain unaccounted for within visible capacity.

That is not interpretation. It is the arithmetic consequence of the figures presented.

What This Means

This is no longer just a policy debate. It is a question of accountability. Because without traceability:

• welfare cannot be verified

• public health claims cannot be tested

• outcomes cannot be independently assessed

And crucially conflicting narratives cannot be resolved

Final Point

Two things are now true at the same time:

• A system claims large-scale success.

• That same system cannot clearly show where all the animals are.

Those positions cannot coexist indefinitely.

If the numbers are accurate, the data should exist. If the data does not exist, the numbers cannot be relied on.

This analysis is based on publicly reported figures and statements from parliamentary proceedings; no comprehensive official dataset reconciling these figures has been identified at the time of writing.

Share

TBMM Minutes Below

5398

158KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

There is a version of the Bilecik (Turkey) story that will be told as a one-off: an illegal site, dead animals discovered, authorities step in, area cleared.

That version is convenient. It is also dangerously incomplete.

Because when eight live dogs are still present, sick enough to require quarantine this is not a static scene. It is not just a dumping ground. It is evidence of a process that was ongoing, unmonitored, and allowed to continue until it became impossible to ignore.

And that is where this stops being a cruelty story alone, and becomes a public health failure.

This Was Not Sudden

Dead animals do not accumulate in isolation. Sick animals do not remain on site without time passing.

The presence of:

• multiple carcasses (dogs and a horse)

• large volumes of waste

• live, unwell animals

points to duration.

This environment did not emerge overnight. It developed, deteriorated, and persisted. Which raises the first critical question:

How does a site like this exist long enough to reach this point without detection?

Animal Suffering and Public Health

There is a persistent tendency to separate animal welfare from public health.
In reality, they are tightly linked and this case demonstrates exactly why.

A site containing:

• decomposing animal bodies

• unmanaged waste

• untreated, sick animals

is not just inhumane. It is a disease environment. Such conditions can facilitate:

• the spread of infectious disease between animals

• parasite proliferation

• contamination of surrounding land and water

• increased risk of transmission at the human–animal interface

This is not theoretical. It is the predictable outcome of neglect at scale.

The Traceability Problem

The most important question remains unanswered:

Where did these dogs come from?

Because without origin, there is no accountability.

• Were they abandoned?

• Were they collected and not recorded?

• Were they being kept and allowed to deteriorate?

Each scenario points to a different failure. All of them point to the same underlying issue:

A complete absence of traceability.

No intake records. No oversight of movement. No intervention before crisis point.

When animals can appear, suffer, and die without any system tracking them, the risk does not stop with them.

This Is What Happens When No One Is Watching

The official response will read well:

• site cleared

• animals removed

• investigation opened

But intervention at this stage is reactive. By the time a site reaches this condition:

• animals have already died

• others are already sick

• environmental contamination has already occurred

Public health is not protected at the point of clean-up. It is protected at the point of early detection and control.

The Wider Implication

This is not about one illegal site in one province.

It is about what happens when:

• land use is not effectively monitored

• animal populations are not tracked

• responsibility is diffused across systems that do not communicate

In that gap, conditions like this form.

And when they do, they do not remain contained.

The Line That Should Not Be Crossed

Eight dogs were still alive when this site was found.

That means this was not a past event.
It was ongoing.

Which leads to a simple, unavoidable conclusion:

This was not just a place animals were left.
It was a place they were ending up — repeatedly — without interruption.

Until that pathway is identified and closed, this is not resolved. It is paused.

Final Point

If animal welfare is treated as optional, public health becomes reactive.

If traceability is absent, accountability disappears. And when both fail at the same time, sites like this are not anomalies.

They are outcomes.

Editors Note

Veterinarians removed the dogs still alive & have taken them for medical help.

Share

In August 2024, a new law was introduced in Turkey.
It was presented as a solution to remove stray dogs from the streets, place them into shelters, provide medical care, and move them towards adoption.

The timeline for full implementation was set to run until December 2028.
This reflected a known constraint: there are an estimated 4 million stray dogs, and not enough shelter capacity to house them.

The months since the law came into force have been devastating. In many areas, removal has outpaced capacity. Reports and field observations indicate:

• overcrowded and substandard shelter conditions

• lack of food and water

• untreated disease and injury

• inadequate protection from the elements

There have also been documented cases of direct abuse, including:

• beatings

• suffocation

• poisoning

Current reported figure: 149,000 dogs dead in shelters.

This is not a completed policy outcome. It is an ongoing one.

Our work is ongoing. It is incredibly tough & challenging. The need has not slowed.

And neither have we.

Share

A new warning has been issued in Turkey.

The Istanbul Bar Association has publicly challenged a directive from the Istanbul Governorship ordering municipalities to collect stray dogs by the end of May.

Their position is direct, the order may not be legal.

What the directive says

The instruction, sent to local authorities, calls for:

• The collection of stray dogs

• Their removal from public spaces

• Completion of this process by the end of May

It also reportedly warns that authorities who fail to comply could face legal consequences.

Why lawyers are intervening

The Istanbul Bar Association’s Animal Rights Centre has made a clear legal argument:

• The directive has no legal basis

• It conflicts with the Turkish Constitution

• It contradicts Law 5199 (Animal Protection Law)

More importantly, they highlight something often ignored, under existing law, municipalities have until 31 December 2028 to:

• build proper animal care facilities

• improve existing shelter conditions

The legal line that matters

The Bar points to a critical principle:

Orders that conflict with the law do not have to be followed.

Under Article 137 of the Constitution:

• If an instruction is unlawful

• carrying it out does not remove responsibility

This shifts the pressure. From municipalities to the individuals being told to act.

What this means in practice

This is where the situation becomes serious.

If dogs are:

• collected

• confined

• or handled without proper conditions

Then those actions may not just be controversial, they may be criminal under existing legislation.

A legal process has already begun

The Istanbul Bar Association has not stopped at a statement.

They have:

• filed a case to suspend the directive

• initiated a legal challenge against the order

This is now moving through the courts.

Why this matters beyond Istanbul

This is not just about one city. It exposes a wider conflict:

• Political pressure to remove dogs from public spaces

• Legal frameworks that require care, infrastructure, and time

And those two things are now colliding.

Final point

This is no longer just an animal welfare issue. It is a legal one.

A directive has been issued. Lawyers are saying it may be unlawful.
And the outcome will not be decided by opinion but by whether the law is followed.

Share

A municipal shelter in Yalova is now under investigation following allegations that dogs have died inside the facility.

The case did not emerge quietly. Animal rights advocates and local residents have filed a criminal complaint, raising concerns that the deaths may be linked to neglect or mistreatment. In response, the Yalova Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office has opened a judicial investigation, and crime scene teams have already entered the shelter to begin their work.

Investigators are not approaching this as a general review. They are examining the fundamentals of how the shelter is being run, its hygiene conditions, its internal logbooks, and the physical state of the facility itself. Samples have also been taken to establish whether the deaths were the result of natural causes or something more systemic. The direction of the case will depend on what those findings show.

At this stage, the outline is clear, but the detail is not. There are allegations of deaths inside a municipal shelter, a prosecutor-led investigation, and a forensic examination of the site. What remains unknown is just as significant: there is no confirmed number of dogs, no established cause of death, and no official findings

This leaves the case in a position that is difficult to ignore but not yet possible to fully understand. It is serious enough to require legal scrutiny, but not yet clear enough to draw conclusions. The focus now shifts away from allegation and towards evidence, what can be established, what can be proven, and whether standards were upheld.

The outcome will not be shaped by reaction, but by documentation. How many dogs died. Why they died. Whether the conditions inside the shelter met what is required. And ultimately, whether anyone is held responsible.

An investigation like this should not end in uncertainty. It should end in clarity.

Until that happens, this remains a formal case built on serious claims and a set of questions that still need to be answered.

Share

There is a photograph circulating of a dog lying quietly outside a Watsons store in Taksim Turkey
Her name is Prenses.

She is not an unknown animal. She is not hidden, aggressive, or transient. She is a familiar presence the kind of dog people recognise, step around, and in many cases, quietly care for. The kind of dog who exists in that delicate space between street and belonging.

And yet, within a matter of hours, she became the centre of a public dispute.

The Reality Behind the Image

What appears calm on the surface often sits on unstable ground.

Reports suggest that complaints were made about Prenses being present around the store. That alone is enough, in the current climate, to trigger intervention. Not necessarily because the dog has done anything wrong but because her presence becomes inconvenient to someone.

From there, the pattern is familiar:

• A complaint is raised

• Removal becomes a possibility

• A decision is made quickly

• The dog’s future shifts overnight

Prenses’ situation escalated not because she changed but because perception did.

A Measured Response Matters

In this case, public attention arrived quickly.
And importantly, so did a response from Watsons Türkiye.

Their statement did not dismiss concern. It did not escalate tension. It indicated that Prenses is being cared for and is not abandoned, and that steps have been taken with her welfare in mind.

That matters.

It is easy, in moments like this, for businesses to retreat behind policy or silence. Instead, Watsons acknowledged the situation and signalled responsibility. For a company operating in a complex and often polarised environment around stray dogs, that is not insignificant.

It is also worth recognising that many businesses including Watsons have a quiet, consistent history of tolerance and care toward street animals, often without public attention.

This is not a case of indifference. It is a case of navigating pressure.

The Fragility of Community Dogs

Prenses’ story highlights something deeper.

The concept of the community dog is often spoken about as if it offers security. In reality, it can sometimes be one of the most fragile positions an animal can occupy.

A dog may be:

• fed daily

• known by name

• tolerated by a business

• accepted by regular visitors

And still be one complaint away from removal.

There is no formal protection in that status. No guaranteed continuity. No safeguard against sudden change.

What looks like stability is often temporary permission.

Where Responsibility Sits

It would be easy to frame this as a failure of a single business.
It is not.

Situations like this emerge from a wider environment:

• unclear frameworks around street dogs

• pressure from complaints framed as hygiene or safety concerns

• limited structured alternatives for dogs who cannot simply disappear

Businesses, municipalities, and individuals are all operating within that system often making decisions under pressure, and not always with full control over outcomes.

That does not remove responsibility.
But it does mean responsibility is shared.

What Should Happen Next

The most important question is not who is to blame.
It is what stability looks like for dogs like Prenses.

That means:

• clarity on where she is and who is responsible for her care

• ensuring she is not moved repeatedly in response to complaints

• recognising that visible, calm, non-aggressive dogs are not the problem

And more broadly building systems where dogs are not displaced simply because they are seen

Share

Credit hayvan.hemsiresi.mine.vural

On 14 April 2026, three dogs, Zeus, Mavi and Kırmızı were taken from the Kadıköy waterfront in Istanbul. They were not involved in an incident. They were not reported as dangerous. They were simply there.

Today, there is one question that has not been answered:

Where are they?

The Removal

Municipal teams from Kadıköy Municipality collected the three dogs from the rıhtım (waterfront area). Animal rights advocate Mine Vural, who has been documenting the case, states clearly:

• There was no biting incident

• There was no public safety threat

• The dogs were removed simply because they were present

These were not unknown animals. They were named, recognised, and part of a local care network.

Known Dogs, Known Place

The dogs had an established presence in Kadıköy. Local volunteers and groups including Dört Ayaklı Şehir state that they were:

• Regularly monitored

• Known to the community

• Living within a stable environment

This matters because it challenges the narrative that all street dogs are unmanaged or unpredictable. These were community dogs living peacefully in a managed place.

After Collection: Silence

Once taken, the trail stops. There are:

• No verified updates

• No confirmed location

• No images or records of their condition

The absence of information is now the central issue. The same dogs who were visible, photographed, named, known have effectively disappeared from public view. No verifiable information has been provided about where they are or what condition they are in.

Legal Context and Dispute

The case has drawn criticism from political and advocacy groups. The Türkiye İşçi Partisi (Kadıköy branch) has questioned the legality of the removal, pointing to:

• Law No. 5199 Animal Protection Law, which governs the treatment of street animals

• Existing timelines that allow municipalities several years to develop appropriate shelter infrastructure

They argue that:

• Removing dogs without adequate facilities risks placing them in conditions that may not meet welfare standards

• The action may be inconsistent with the intent of the law

The Core Issue: Visibility vs Disappearance

This case is not about a dog attack. It is not about an emergency intervention.

It is about a shift:

• From visible, known dogs

• To unaccounted animals behind closed systems

Before:

• The dogs were seen daily

• Their condition could be observed

• Their behaviour was understood

After:

• There is no public visibility

• No independent verification

• No clear outcome

Why This Matters Beyond Three Dogs

This is not an isolated concern. Across Turkey, there is increasing focus on:

• Collection of street dogs

• Shelter capacity and conditions

• Accountability after removal

The question is no longer just whether dogs are taken.

It is:

What happens next and who is able to see it?

Conclusion

Zeus, Mavi and Kırmızı were not invisible animals. They were:

• Named

• Known

• Part of a community

Their collection is not just about three dogs. It reflects a wider issue:

When animals are removed from public spaces, they often disappear from public accountability as well.

Until there is transparency, clear records, accessible information, and verifiable outcomes the same question will continue to be asked:

Where are they now?

Share