When people discuss stray dogs in the Philippines, the conversation is usually framed around sterilisation, vaccination and responsible ownership. Across the country, local governments, veterinary offices and animal welfare organisations continue to invest in anti-rabies programmes and spay-neuter campaigns, creating the impression of a country pursuing a humane and prevention-focused approach to dog population management. Yet a closer examination of what happens after dogs are captured by municipal authorities reveals a more complicated picture and raises important questions about whether the greatest animal welfare challenge may not be on the streets at all, but inside the municipal pound system.

One of the biggest obstacles to understanding the situation is the lack of national data. The Philippines does not appear to publish comprehensive figures showing how many dogs enter municipal pounds each year, how many are reclaimed by their owners, how many are adopted and how many are euthanised. Without that information it is impossible to assess the true outcomes of the country’s stray animal management system or determine whether current policies are reducing suffering or simply shifting it out of public view.

The clearest insight comes from Davao City, where the City Veterinarian’s Office reported that 6,143 cats and dogs were impounded during 2024. Around 500 were reclaimed by their owners and approximately 20 were adopted, while the remainder were euthanised after the holding period expired because the pound lacked sufficient capacity. The facility reportedly operates with only 12 cages while receiving up to 25 animals per day, and animals that are not reclaimed within three days are euthanised. If those figures are accurate, they suggest that more than ninety percent of impounded animals did not leave the facility alive.

What makes the Davao data particularly significant is not simply the scale of euthanasia but the transparency with which the city discusses the problem. Officials openly acknowledge the challenges created by limited capacity and high intake numbers. The crucial question, however, is whether Davao represents an exceptional case or whether similar outcomes are occurring in municipal pounds across the country. At present, there is no reliable way to answer that question because so few cities publish detailed outcome data.

The picture becomes even more complex when examining other municipalities. Cebu City has increasingly attracted attention for its Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return programme, which focuses on sterilising, vaccinating and returning healthy community dogs rather than relying on long-term impoundment. Local officials have publicly promoted a model that seeks to allow dogs to remain within their communities wherever possible, demonstrating that alternative approaches exist within the Philippines. At the same time, other cities continue to grapple with overcrowded facilities, low adoption rates and limited resources. In Quezon City, authorities have acknowledged capturing hundreds of stray animals each week while simultaneously attempting to expand rehabilitation and adoption efforts. In Bacolod, new shelter facilities are being developed to relieve pressure on existing systems. In Iloilo, debates continue about the future role of pounds and the extent to which euthanasia should remain part of municipal animal management.

Taken together, these examples suggest that there is no single Philippine model. Instead, there appears to be a patchwork of local systems producing very different outcomes depending on the resources available, the priorities of local authorities and the capacity of individual facilities. This distinction is important because it challenges the idea that the Philippines can be understood simply through its sterilisation campaigns or anti-rabies programmes. Those initiatives are real, widespread and often impressive, but they do not automatically reveal what happens to the thousands of dogs that enter municipal pounds each year.

Unlike countries such as Türkiye or Morocco, where international concern has focused on collection campaigns and the removal of dogs from public spaces, the Philippines does not appear to be pursuing a national strategy centred on mass removal. The dominant public messaging remains focused on prevention through sterilisation, vaccination and responsible ownership. Yet euthanasia remains a routine legal outcome for unclaimed animals in many municipal pounds, particularly where space and resources are limited. This creates the possibility that the country’s animal welfare challenge may not be a street dog crisis in the conventional sense but rather a municipal pound crisis that receives very little attention outside local communities.

The implications are significant. If Davao’s figures prove broadly representative of other major cities, then thousands of dogs may be entering pounds every year with very little chance of leaving alive. If, however, cities such as Cebu become the dominant model, the national picture could look very different and point towards a future based on community management rather than confinement and euthanasia. The reality may lie somewhere between those two extremes, but the absence of transparent national reporting means nobody can say for certain.

Meaningful animal welfare policy depends on accountability, and accountability depends on data. Communities should be able to see how many dogs enter municipal pounds, how many are reclaimed, how many are adopted and how many are euthanised. Without those figures, it becomes difficult to evaluate whether current systems are achieving their stated goals or simply managing a problem behind closed doors. The Philippines deserves recognition for its investment in sterilisation and rabies prevention, but those achievements should not prevent difficult questions from being asked. Until reliable national data becomes available, the possibility remains that one of the country’s most significant animal welfare challenges is not visible on its streets at all, but hidden within the municipal pound system itself.

Share

Across Pakistan, countless street dogs live unseen and unprotected.

They survive alongside roads, in markets, outside homes and within communities, often relying on scraps of food, the kindness of local people and the dedication of a small number of rescuers and veterinarians who try to help them.

But for many dogs, life on the streets means constant danger.

There is little access to veterinary care, sterilisation programmes remain limited in many areas, and there is no consistent nationwide system designed to protect and manage free-roaming dogs humanely. The result is a population of animals left vulnerable to injury, illness, abandonment and deliberate harm.

Dogs Caught In Human Failure

Street dogs did not create the conditions they live in.

They are born into environments where food waste is widespread, veterinary services are often inaccessible, and long term population management has not been properly developed.

Instead of investment in prevention, many communities have historically relied on removing dogs after problems arise.

This has led to repeated reports of poisoning, shooting and other inhumane methods being used against street dogs in parts of Pakistan. In Lahore, animal welfare groups raised concerns in 2026 about alleged poisoning and killing of dogs during municipal operations, while the Islamabad High Court later permanently prohibited poisoning, shooting and indiscriminate killing in the capital and ordered authorities to use humane population management methods.

Recent Reports Of Cruelty

The suffering experienced by Pakistan’s street dogs is not only the result of neglect. In some areas, dogs continue to face deliberate harm through population control methods that animal welfare groups describe as cruel and ineffective.

In 2026, Lahore became the focus of renewed concern after animal welfare organisations alleged that municipal operations resulted in street dogs being poisoned and killed through inhumane methods. Reports from local campaigners described dogs being found dead in several areas, with concerns also raised about the disposal of carcasses.

These allegations came despite growing recognition that humane approaches, including vaccination and sterilisation programmes, offer a more effective and compassionate way to manage free-roaming dog populations.

The Islamabad High Court’s 2026 ruling, which permanently prohibited poisoning and shooting of street dogs in the capital and directed authorities towards humane population management, highlighted the need for a national shift away from lethal methods.

For the dogs affected, these are not simply population control measures. They are individual lives lost through a failure to provide humane solutions.

The Dogs Behind The Statistics

Behind every report of a stray dog is an individual animal.

A mother searching for food for her puppies. An injured dog hiding because it has learned to fear people. A puppy born into a world where survival depends on luck.

Dogs who could be vaccinated, sterilised and supported are instead often left to suffer because humane systems have not been built.

Rescue groups across Pakistan work tirelessly to treat injured animals, provide food and emergency care, and protect dogs from cruelty. However, many operate with limited resources while facing a scale of need far beyond what private organisations can manage alone.

A Better Future Is Possible

The answer to Pakistan’s street dog population is not more suffering.

Killing individual dogs does not address the reasons populations exist. Without sterilisation, vaccination, waste management and education, new dogs continue to enter the population.

Humane programmes based on vaccination and sterilisation offer a different path. The Islamabad High Court’s 2026 ruling recognised this by directing authorities away from lethal control methods and towards scientific population management.

Protecting The Voiceless

Pakistan’s street dogs need more than temporary reactions. They need recognition that they are living beings deserving of protection.

The future should not be one where dogs are born into suffering, survive without support and die because society failed to provide a humane solution.

A country’s treatment of its most vulnerable animals reflects its values.

For Pakistan’s street dogs, change will come through compassion, investment and a commitment to coexistence.

Share

As cities across India continue searching for ways to manage free roaming dog populations, a proposed new municipal shelter in Bengaluru is already prompting concern from local animal welfare organisations before it has its first dog.

The facility, which is expected to accommodate around 500 dogs, has been presented as part of the city’s response to the challenges surrounding free roaming dogs. Yet experienced animal welfare groups are urging the authorities to pause and consider whether the shelter has been designed with the long term welfare of its future residents in mind.

Their concerns are not about opposing a shelter for the sake of it. Instead, they are asking important questions about whether a facility of this scale can provide the standard of care that hundreds of dogs will require every single day.

Among the issues raised are the planned capacity of the shelter, the layout of the kennels and whether sufficient trained staff will be available to care for such a large number of animals. Campaigners have also questioned the level of consultation with organisations that work directly with free roaming dogs and understand the practical realities of housing and managing them.

These are not insignificant concerns.

A shelter should be more than a place that simply removes dogs from public view. Dogs need adequate space, veterinary care, disease control, behavioural assessment, enrichment, exercise and daily human interaction. They need experienced staff who can recognise illness, reduce stress and prevent conflict between unfamiliar animals. Without these essentials, welfare can quickly decline, regardless of how new the buildings may be.

The debate unfolding in Bengaluru highlights a question that every municipality planning large scale dog shelters should ask before construction is complete, what will life actually be like for the dogs once the gates close behind them?

Around the world, governments are announcing new shelters as evidence that they are responding to concerns about free roaming dogs. Far less attention is paid to what happens after those dogs arrive. Capacity figures and construction budgets may make headlines, but the day to day welfare of the animals depends on careful planning, appropriate staffing and a long-term commitment to providing high-quality care.

That is why the voices of Bengaluru’s animal welfare organisations deserve to be heard. They are raising these questions before the shelter opens, while there is still an opportunity to address potential problems rather than trying to solve them after dogs have already been moved in.

Whether this shelter ultimately becomes a model of good practice or a facility that struggles under the weight of expectation remains to be seen. What is clear is that local animal welfare organisations are asking for welfare to remain at the centre of the conversation, and that is a message that extends far beyond Bengaluru.

Share

India’s Supreme Court has delivered one of the most consequential judgments on the management of free roaming dogs in the country’s history. The ruling directs authorities to remove dogs from schools, hospitals, railway stations, bus stations and other institutional areas, while requiring every district to establish Animal Birth Control (ABC) centres and strengthen sterilisation and vaccination programmes.

For many, the judgment represents a new legal framework for managing India’s street dog population.

For us, it raises a far more urgent question. What will happen to the dogs once they are removed?

That question is important because laws do not protect animals on their own. Policies do not feed hungry dogs, provide veterinary treatment or guarantee humane care. Everything depends on implementation, and across India the implementation of stray dog management has too often been marked by inconsistency, limited resources and growing pressure on local authorities.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that dogs removed from institutional areas are not to be returned to those locations after sterilisation. Instead, they are to enter the system created under the Animal Birth Control programme. On paper, that sounds orderly. In reality, many municipalities are already struggling to provide the infrastructure needed to manage the dogs already in their care.

In Nagpur, officials recently acknowledged that almost 1,900 dogs remain in institutional areas because there is simply nowhere to relocate them. The city’s existing ABC shelters have capacity for only a fraction of the dogs requiring accommodation, highlighting the gap between legal expectations and operational reality.

Mumbai has announced plans to build three new shelters as authorities respond to an estimated population of around 94,000 free roaming dogs, an indication of the enormous scale of the challenge facing even India’s largest cities.

In Ernakulam, concerns have been raised that several ABC centres are either non functional or operating without enough veterinarians, trained dog catchers or resources to deliver an effective programme.

These are not isolated administrative problems. They expose the reality that infrastructure has struggled to keep pace with expectations for years.

That is why we believe this judgment should be viewed with caution. The legal wording may appear balanced, but the experience of dogs will depend entirely on what happens after capture. If shelters are already full, if ABC centres are under resourced, if veterinary capacity is insufficient and if oversight is weak, then expanding removals risks placing even greater pressure on a system that is already showing signs of strain.

Supporters of the judgment argue that it strikes a balance between protecting public safety and maintaining humane population management through sterilisation and vaccination. Those objectives are not incompatible. Every community deserves to be safe, and every dog deserves humane treatment.

The difficulty is that humane treatment cannot simply be written into a judgment. It has to exist in practice.

That means properly funded facilities, qualified veterinary teams, transparent record keeping, independent monitoring and enough capacity to care for every dog that enters the system. Without those safeguards, the welfare of removed dogs becomes increasingly difficult to verify.

India’s stray dog crisis has never been simply a legal issue. It is a question of resources, accountability and political will.

The Supreme Court has now set a new legal direction, but history suggests that implementation is where good intentions are most likely to falter. If governments are serious about protecting both people and animals, they must be prepared to demonstrate not only how dogs are removed, but where they go, how they are cared for and what ultimately becomes of them.

For millions of India’s street dogs, that is the question that now matters more than any judgment.

Share

Authorities in Da Nang Vietnam have approved a new policy that will see stray dogs captured and taken to a municipal holding facility, where owners will have just 48 hours to reclaim them before the animals face euthanasia.

The new system establishes dedicated capture teams to remove free roaming dogs and cats from public areas and transport them to a central holding facility at the Kim Lien Animal Quarantine Station. Once admitted, each animal will undergo a veterinary examination, receive basic care and be housed while officials attempt to identify or locate its owner.

Under the policy, owners have only 48 hours to come forward, prove ownership, pay any applicable penalties and meet the legal requirements for reclaiming their animal.

According to reports published in Vietnam, dogs that remain unclaimed after the 48 hour period will be euthanised.

The policy has been introduced as part of Da Nang’s wider efforts to improve public safety, strengthen rabies control and reduce the number of dogs roaming freely through the city. Local authorities have cited concerns over dog attacks, environmental hygiene and responsible pet ownership as justification for the new measures.

While officials present the policy as a public health initiative, the consequences for unclaimed dogs are stark. A two day window gives owners very little time to realise their pet has been captured, identify where it has been taken and complete the process required to secure its release. For dogs without identifiable owners, the outcome is even more concerning.

Across the world, many communities are searching for humane and sustainable ways to manage free roaming dog populations. Long term solutions focus on responsible ownership, identification, registration, sterilisation, vaccination and public education. These measures address the root causes of roaming dog populations while protecting both public safety and animal welfare.

Policies that rely on short holding periods followed by euthanasia raise difficult ethical questions. They place the burden on individual dogs rather than addressing why so many animals are found on the streets in the first place. Without effective prevention measures, new dogs inevitably replace those that have been removed.

The introduction of Da Nang’s new policy will be watched closely by animal welfare organisations. As implementation begins, there will inevitably be questions about how many dogs are captured, how many are reunited with their owners and how many ultimately lose their lives after the 48-hour deadline.

Dog Desk Animal Action is in contact with Vietnamese authorities & will continue to monitor developments in Vietnam as further information becomes available.

Share

Across Kuwait, stray dogs are increasingly being treated as a public problem that needs to disappear from view.

Over recent months, Arabic-language reporting has focused heavily on public complaints, removal campaigns, and fears surrounding dogs living in industrial and residential areas. Residents are now encouraged to report stray dogs directly through WhatsApp systems and municipal hotlines, while field teams are dispatched to remove animals from public spaces.

The language surrounding the issue has changed noticeably. Dogs are no longer being discussed primarily as abandoned animals or as part of a wider welfare failure. Instead, the conversation is increasingly framed around public safety, control campaigns, sanitation, and urban order.

But behind the growing focus on removal lies a far more uncomfortable question. What actually happens to the dogs afterwards?

Many of these dogs did not simply appear overnight. Some were born on the streets after years of uncontrolled breeding and abandonment. Others were once owned animals themselves. Gulf rescue groups have repeatedly documented dogs abandoned in desert areas, left behind during relocations, or discarded when they became inconvenient. The same society that created the stray dog population is now demanding that it disappears.

The public sees the dogs while they are on the streets. They see reports on social media. They see WhatsApp numbers encouraging complaints. They hear discussions about packs near industrial areas and fears over attacks. What the public rarely sees is the system that exists after removal.

Kuwait still does not appear to have a large transparent government-run stray dog shelter infrastructure capable of absorbing large numbers of animals. Independent rescuers and private volunteers continue to carry much of the burden themselves, often caring for significant numbers of dogs in difficult conditions with limited support. Yet removal campaigns continue to expand.

This creates a troubling gap between the visible part of the system and the invisible one. If more dogs are being reported, captured and removed, where exactly are they going?

In countries operating large-scale humane management systems, authorities often publish shelter statistics, sterilisation numbers, adoption outcomes and rehabilitation programmes. In Kuwait, public discussion remains overwhelmingly focused on reporting, collection and removal. Long-term welfare outcomes are far less visible.

That absence of transparency fuels growing concern among rescuers and observers across the region. For years, animal advocates in Gulf countries have raised fears about dogs being relocated to remote desert areas, abandoned far from urban centres, or disappearing into systems the public rarely sees. Whether every allegation is accurate or not, the concern itself reflects a deeper problem, the public can clearly see dogs being removed, but cannot clearly see what happens afterwards.

This is not simply a story about stray dogs. It is also a story about how societies respond to problems they helped create. These dogs did not fail people. People failed them long before removal campaigns began. They were failed through abandonment, uncontrolled breeding, lack of sterilisation, and the absence of long-term humane planning. Now many are disappearing from the streets entirely, while the systems surrounding their fate remain largely hidden from public scrutiny.

The streets may become quieter. But silence does not necessarily mean the problem has been solved.

Share

Why Have We Added The Turks and Caicos Islands To The Watchlist?

The Turks and Caicos Islands, a British Overseas Territory in the Caribbean, have been added to the Dog Desk Animal Action Global Stray Dog Crisis Map Watchlist following a review of recent government announcements and publicly available information relating to stray dog management.

This decision has not been made because the territory is experiencing a large-scale stray dog crisis. Nor is it based on the size of the free-roaming dog population, which does not appear to have been publicly estimated by the government.

Instead, it reflects a combination of recent developments and a number of important unanswered questions.

A New Focus On Stray Dog Management

On 1 June 2026, local media published a government press statement describing a strategic meeting between the Department of Agriculture and licensed dog trappers.

According to the statement, trappers reported increasing problems with members of the public interfering with trapping operations by releasing captured dogs, damaging traps and stealing equipment. During the meeting, the licensed trappers committed to expanding and intensifying their efforts to reduce the number of roaming dogs.

The government also highlighted responsible ownership, registration requirements and proposals to explore community based sterilisation programmes as part of a longer term approach to population management.

Taken together, the announcement suggests that stray dog management has become an increasing priority for the territory.

Existing Public Information Raises Further Questions

During our research, we identified a Department of Agriculture press statement published in 2022 describing how trapped dogs were managed at that time.

The statement explained that dogs wearing identification tags were retained while their owners were identified and the dogs returned. It also stated that dogs found in traps without identification tags were humanely euthanised.

At present, however, we have not identified any subsequent government policy or public statement confirming whether that operational approach remains unchanged or has since been amended.

This is an important distinction. Rather than assume the current position, we will be seeking clarification directly from the Department of Agriculture.

Questions That Remain Unanswered

As part of our review, we have been unable to establish several key pieces of information, including:

• The estimated free-roaming dog population.

• The number of dogs trapped each year.

• The number reclaimed by owners.

• The number transferred to rescue organisations.

• The number euthanised.

• The location and capacity of government holding facilities.

• The average holding period following capture.

• The current status of the proposed community sterilisation programme.

These are important questions when assessing how stray dog management operates in practice and what outcomes dogs experience after entering the government system.

Seeking Clarification

Dog Desk Animal Action will be writing to the Department of Agriculture to request clarification on these issues and to seek the latest available information regarding stray dog management within the territory.

Our objective is to ensure that any future reporting accurately reflects current government policy and is based on evidence rather than assumption.

Why The Watchlist?

The purpose of the Watchlist is to identify countries and territories where developments warrant closer monitoring.

The recent announcement of expanded trapping efforts, combined with the absence of publicly available information regarding operational outcomes and the uncertainty surrounding previously published guidance, means that the Turks and Caicos Islands merit closer examination.

Adding the territory to the Watchlist does not imply that it is experiencing the same level of concern as countries classified as being in crisis.

It does, however, recognise that significant questions remain unanswered.

As further information becomes available, including any response from the Department of Agriculture, we will continue to review the evidence and update the Global Stray Dog Crisis Map accordingly.

Share

Uzbekistan is not currently a confirmed stray dog crisis zone on the scale of Türkiye. There is no verified evidence of a nationwide emergency removal policy, mass municipal shelter expansion, or official collection targets affecting the entire country.

But during 2025 and 2026, enough warning signs have begun emerging for the situation to attract increasing concern from animal welfare advocates and rescuers.

Recent reports have highlighted growing pressure on local dog management systems, particularly around collection activity and the lack of long-term infrastructure capable of absorbing captured animals safely. A February 2026 report discussing conditions in Yangiyul district described overcrowding concerns, shortages of proper facilities, and increasing strain on volunteers and rescuers already trying to manage the existing population. The same reporting suggested that new holding facilities were only now beginning to be planned following government reforms introduced at the end of 2025.

Alongside this, activists and rescue groups have continued raising concerns throughout 2025 and 2026 about the treatment of stray dogs after capture. Social media footage and local allegations have repeatedly described aggressive collection methods, overcrowded holding conditions, dogs disappearing after municipal operations, and poor transparency around what happens once animals are removed from public spaces. Some claims also include allegations of shootings and dead animals being discarded following capture operations.

Some of these reports come from activists rather than independently verified investigations, which means caution is necessary. Not every allegation can be confirmed. But the volume and consistency of the concerns are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore entirely.

At the same time, Uzbekistan is also showing signs of growing public awareness around animal welfare itself. In April 2026, regional reporting confirmed that lawmakers were preparing new animal protection legislation following public pressure and demands for stronger cruelty laws. That creates a complicated picture.

On one side, there are visible efforts to strengthen legal protections for animals. On the other, there are continuing reports of weak infrastructure, inconsistent enforcement, and growing concern about what happens to dogs once municipal collection systems become involved.

Many stray dog crises do not begin with openly declared policies of mass killing or removal. More often, they begin with mounting public pressure for authorities to solve the problem quickly, while humane infrastructure struggles to keep pace behind the scenes.

As collection systems expand, the central issue becomes transparency. Dogs disappear from public spaces, but questions remain about where they are being housed, how long facilities can cope, what oversight exists, and what happens when systems exceed capacity.

Uzbekistan has not yet reached the level of escalation now visible in countries like Türkiye. But several of the same early warning indicators are beginning to emerge at the same time, growing collection activity, infrastructure gaps, pressure on rescuers and volunteers, and increasing concern over what happens after dogs are removed from public view. That is why Uzbekistan has moved onto the watch list. Not because a full crisis has already been confirmed, but because the conditions that often appear before wider welfare deterioration are becoming harder to ignore.

Share

When Dog Desk Animal Action launched the Global Stray Dog Crisis Map, Bangladesh was classified as a Stable country. That classification reflected a nation that, despite significant challenges, had largely moved away from the large scale dog culling policies seen elsewhere and had adopted a framework based on vaccination, sterilisation and legal protection.

Today, Bangladesh has been moved from Stable to Watchlist.

This change does not mean Bangladesh is facing the same level of crisis as countries where systematic dog killing, mass round ups or widespread euthanasia programmes are being reported. It does mean that developments on the ground raise enough concern that the situation now warrants closer monitoring.

Our map is not designed to measure the number of stray dogs in a country. Nor does it assess countries based on culture, religion or levels of economic development. The map examines how street dogs are treated, the direction of policy, the strength of legal protections and whether there are signs that those protections are being weakened.

Recent developments in Bangladesh suggest that caution is justified.

Bangladesh has, for several years, been cited as an example of a country pursuing alternatives to culling. Vaccination and sterilisation programmes have been used to address rabies concerns, and animal welfare legislation provides legal protection for animals. These measures helped place Bangladesh in a more positive position than many countries facing ongoing debates over dog eradication.

However, reports emerging during 2026 indicate growing pressure on that framework.

Animal welfare advocates have raised concerns about the removal of community dogs from established territories. There have also been reports of demonstrations and public campaigns calling for dog culling. Campaigners argue that some actions being taken by local authorities may be inconsistent with existing animal welfare protections and the principles that have guided Bangladesh’s approach in recent years.

One of the purposes of the Watchlist category is to identify countries where protections for street dogs appear vulnerable to political, social or administrative pressure. A country does not need to be experiencing mass culling to warrant closer attention. Sometimes the warning signs appear long before a full scale crisis develops.

Bangladesh remains considerably better positioned than countries currently classified as Crisis on the map. We are not seeing evidence of a nationwide policy of systematic dog destruction. The legal framework supporting humane dog management remains in place, and many organisations and individuals continue to advocate strongly for vaccination, sterilisation and coexistence.

At the same time, reports of dog removals, increasing public calls for culling and concerns expressed by animal welfare groups suggest that the situation can no longer be regarded as entirely stable.

The Watchlist category exists precisely for situations such as this. It acknowledges progress that has been made while recognising that those gains may not be secure.

Dog Desk Animal Action will continue to monitor developments in Bangladesh and assess future reports against the map’s published criteria. If conditions improve and confidence in the country’s humane management approach is restored, Bangladesh may return to Stable status. If protections continue to come under pressure, further reassessment may become necessary.

For now, Bangladesh moves from Stable to Watchlist because the warning signs are significant enough that they should not be ignored.

Share

Taiwan is one of the most fascinating countries we’ve looked at because it challenges a belief that many animal advocates hold

If euthanasia stops, the problem is solved.

Taiwan shows that it is not always that simple.

Why Taiwan Has Become a No-Kill Shelter Pressure Zone

In 2017, Taiwan became one of the first places in Asia to end routine euthanasia of animals in public shelters. The policy followed years of public concern about shelter killing and formally ended the practice of euthanising healthy animals because they had run out of time in the system.

The policy was widely welcomed. For many people, it represented a major animal welfare victory. But almost immediately, a new question emerged.

What happens when animals keep entering shelters faster than they leave them?

Researchers studying Taiwan’s public shelters have since identified overcrowding as a significant welfare concern. A 2025 study examining welfare conditions in Taiwanese public animal shelters noted that prolonged stays and overcrowding were continuing challenges and warned that many shelters were operating under pressure.

Public shelter euthanasia rates are now reported to be below 1% but the issue is that dogs may remain in shelters for extended periods when adoption cannot keep pace with intake.

This creates a different type of welfare concern. Animals may be safe from euthanasia but still experience limited space, chronic stress, constant barking environments, reduced behavioural enrichment & long-term confinement

The 2025 welfare assessment identified limited space, anxiety-related disorders and depressive-type conditions among the most serious welfare concerns affecting shelter dogs.

This tension has become significant. During 2025, citizen petitions and public discussions again raised concerns about overcrowding and quality of life inside shelters.

Importantly, Taiwan is not experiencing the kind of high-risk shelter pressure seen in the United States or South Korea. The outcomes are fundamentally different.

The United States raises the question:

Why are so many animals still being euthanised?

South Korea raises the question:

Can the shelter system absorb abandonment and the dog meat industry transition?

Taiwan raises a different question entirely:

What happens when euthanasia largely disappears but shelter capacity remains finite?

That makes Taiwan unique in the Dog Desk framework.

Taiwan demonstrates that reducing euthanasia is an important achievement. But it also demonstrates that animal welfare cannot be measured solely by how many animals leave shelters alive. The quality of life experienced by animals while they are there matters too.

For that reason, Taiwan is probably best understood not as a crisis zone and not as a high-risk shelter pressure zone, but as one of the world’s clearest examples of a No-Kill Pressure Zone.

Taiwan's experience has prompted debate among some commentators about how shelters should respond when capacity becomes severely stretched. Dog Desk Animal Action does not support euthanasia as a solution to overcrowding and remains opposed to the killing of healthy animals for population management. The challenge highlighted by Taiwan is not whether animals should live, but how to ensure that animals who do live have sufficient space, enrichment, care and opportunities to leave shelters for permanent homes.

Share

The concern with South Korea is not mass street-dog removal on the scale seen in other countries. The concern is what happens when large numbers of abandoned dogs, shelter dogs and dogs leaving the meat industry all need humane outcomes from a system that is already under pressure.

South Korea has made one of the most significant animal welfare decisions in recent history. In January 2024, its parliament passed a law to end the breeding, slaughter and sale of dogs for meat, with the ban due to take effect in 2027. That law represents a major cultural and political shift.

But the end of one form of suffering does not automatically create safety for the dogs affected by it. There is a question now facing South Korea. Where will the dogs go?

South Korea already has an abandoned-animal shelter system under strain. Local government shelters reportedly took in more than 113,000 abandoned or lost animals in 2023. Reporting from Seoul also shows how serious the outcome problem can be: of 5,176 abandoned pets found in the city in 2023, 2,181 either died or were euthanised in conventional shelters.

The dog meat ban is a historic step forward, but it creates an immediate welfare test. Government plans have referred to nearly half a million dogs needing rehoming, shelter placement or other outcomes as the industry winds down. Reuters reported in September 2024 that South Korea planned incentives and subsidies to help breeders, farmers and restaurants close before the 2027 deadline, with dogs to be rehomed through adoption or shelters.

That is a huge practical challenge.

By June 2025 around 623 of South Korea’s 1,537 dog farms had shut since the law passed, but campaigners remained concerned that many dogs still had uncertain futures, particularly because some are large breeds with limited adoption prospects.

South Korea is trying to end a cruel industry. That should be recognised. But the measure of success will not only be whether dog meat disappears from sale. It will be whether the dogs themselves survive the transition.

A welfare policy is not complete when the law changes. It is complete when the animals affected by that law have somewhere safe to go.

Share

Why Azerbaijan Has Moved Onto The Watch List

Azerbaijan is not currently showing the kind of openly escalating nationwide stray dog crisis now visible in countries like Türkiye. There is no verified evidence of a new 2026 emergency removal programme or a state declared campaign to clear dogs from public spaces across the country.

But Azerbaijan continues to attract concern because longstanding disputes around stray dog collection, transparency, and alleged killings have never been fully resolved.

The issue has remained controversial for years, particularly in Baku, where public pressure around stray dogs continues to grow while activists repeatedly question what happens to dogs after they are collected.

Azerbaijani reporting during 2025 shows that public concern over stray dog populations remains active and politically sensitive. Residents in Baku described fear around packs of dogs gathering in neighbourhoods and public areas, while commentators increasingly framed the issue through the language of public safety and urgent intervention. That pressure is important because when governments and municipalities face growing demands to reduce visible stray dog populations, collection systems often expand faster than transparent humane infrastructure.

Azerbaijan does have an official stray dog management centre known as Toplan, established in Baku under a state-backed initiative that publicly promotes a trap-neuter-vaccinate-return approach.

However, the centre has remained controversial since its creation.

Animal welfare activists and regional media have repeatedly raised concerns about transparency around the facility, questioning what happens to dogs after capture and whether all animals are genuinely being returned following sterilisation programmes. A major 2024 regional investigation reported continuing accusations from activists that dogs disappear after entering the system, while critics said they had struggled for years to obtain meaningful oversight or access to information.

Some activists continue alleging shootings and unlawful killings linked to collection systems. But many of the strongest allegations come from campaign groups and social media reporting rather than independently verified investigations, which means caution is important. Claims of systematic killings cannot currently be verified at a national level using recent independent evidence.

The concern around Azerbaijan is not that a full scale crisis has already been conclusively proven. It is that the same unresolved warning signs continue reappearing year after year, public pressure to reduce dog populations, allegations linked to collection systems, disputes over transparency, and ongoing mistrust between activists and authorities.

Azerbaijan also has a long history of tensions between animal rights advocates and the state around this issue. Multiple protests linked to stray dog killings and the operation of Toplan have taken place since 2019, with activists repeatedly demanding greater transparency around captured animals. That history is important because it shows the debate has never fully stabilised.

And in countries where public pressure continues growing while trust in collection systems remains weak, concerns over humane management rarely disappear completely.

Azerbaijan has not reached the level of escalation now visible elsewhere. But the continued combination of public pressure, unresolved transparency concerns, disputed collection practices, and recurring allegations surrounding stray dogs means the situation still warrants attention.

That is why Azerbaijan remains on the watch list. Not because a nationwide crisis has been definitively confirmed, but because several of the same structural tensions that have preceded wider welfare deterioration elsewhere continue to remain unresolved.

Share

Sri Lanka’s Street Dogs: A Different Path From the Crisis Zones

When discussions about street dogs reach the headlines, the conversation often follows a familiar pattern. The dogs are presented as a problem, the public demands action & authorities face pressure to reduce numbers quickly.

Before long, the debate shifts from how to manage dogs to how to remove them.

Across several countries examined by Dog Desk Animal Action, that shift has become one of the clearest warning signs that a situation may be moving towards crisis territory.

Sri Lanka offers a different story.

Like many countries in South Asia, Sri Lanka has a significant free-roaming dog population. Street dogs are a visible part of daily life in many towns, cities and villages. Visitors quickly notice them resting outside shops, sleeping near bus stations or moving through local communities.

To some observers, their visibility alone suggests a crisis. But visibility and crisis are not the same thing.

The question at the heart of the Dog Desk framework is not how many dogs are on the streets. The question is whether those dogs face a significant systemic threat.

In countries classified as crisis zones, dogs are often caught in disputes over collection, confinement, euthanasia, culling or large scale removal from public spaces. The concern is not simply that dogs exist. It is that the response to them may place large numbers of animals at risk.

Sri Lanka has largely taken a different path.

For decades, the country’s response to free-roaming dogs has centred on rabies control through vaccination and sterilisation. Rather than attempting to remove dogs from public spaces entirely, successive programmes have focused on reducing population growth while protecting both public health and animal welfare.

The strategy has not been without challenges.

Sri Lanka still faces many of the same issues seen elsewhere. Free roaming dogs can suffer from injury, disease, neglect and abandonment. Animal welfare organisations continue to work under financial and logistical pressures. Population management remains an ongoing task rather than a problem that has been solved.

Yet the overall direction of policy remains important.

Sri Lanka’s national rabies elimination strategy continues to place vaccination at the centre of disease control efforts. Government agencies, veterinary services and animal welfare organisations have spent years building programmes designed to reduce rabies transmission without resorting to large-scale dog removal. Human rabies deaths have fallen dramatically over time, demonstrating the impact that sustained vaccination campaigns can have when maintained over the long term.

Recent debates in Sri Lanka have also highlighted an important distinction.

During 2025, animal welfare groups expressed concern that proposed policy changes could weaken sterilisation programmes. Their argument was not that dogs should be removed more aggressively. Their concern was that reducing support for sterilisation could undermine years of progress and create future pressures that might eventually lead to harsher control measures.

That is a very different conversation from those taking place in many crisis-zone countries.

The debate is not centred on making dogs disappear. It is centred on how best to continue managing them.

This is important because one of the biggest misconceptions surrounding street dogs is that their mere presence indicates failure. In reality, a country can have a visible free-roaming dog population and still avoid becoming a crisis zone if the response remains focused on long-term management, vaccination and sterilisation rather than removal.

Sri Lanka demonstrates that distinction clearly.

The country still faces significant welfare challenges. There are still dogs in need of help. There are still communities struggling to balance public health, safety and animal welfare. There is still work to do. But the evidence does not currently suggest that Sri Lanka is moving towards the kinds of policies that have raised concerns elsewhere.

Instead, it remains a country attempting to manage a complex issue through public health measures, vaccination programmes and population control strategies that work with biological realities rather than against them.

That does not make Sri Lanka perfect. It does, however, make it different.

And in a world where an increasing number of countries are debating how quickly dogs can be removed from public spaces, Sri Lanka’s experience offers a reminder that management and removal are not the same thing.

For now, Sri Lanka remains outside the Dog Desk Crisis Zone and Watchlist categories. Because the response has remained focused on managing the challenge rather than eliminating its visibility.

More about the map here

Share

When people think about stray dog crises, they often picture exactly the kind of scenes found across parts of Thailand. Dogs sleeping outside shops, dogs resting on beaches. & dogs wandering through towns, villages and tourist destinations.

From Bangkok to the islands of Phuket, Koh Samui and Koh Phangan, free-roaming dogs are a visible part of everyday life. For many visitors, particularly those arriving from countries where street dogs are rare, the sight can be shocking. It is easy to assume that a country with so many visible dogs must be experiencing a crisis. But that assumption is not always correct.

One of the reasons Dog Desk Animal Action has begun examining countries through a Crisis Zone and Watchlist framework is because dog numbers alone do not tell us whether dogs are facing a significant threat.

Thailand is estimated to have a total stray dog population of around 1.2 million. Many of these dogs live partially outdoors, while others are community dogs, temple dogs, owned free-roaming dogs or genuinely unowned street dogs. Distinguishing between these groups is often difficult because many dogs move freely between human communities rather than living entirely independently.

The result is a country where dogs are highly visible. Yet visibility is not the same as crisis.

In countries that Dog Desk would currently consider crisis zones, the concern is often not the existence of street dogs but the response to them. Large scale collection programmes, expanding confinement systems, euthanasia policies, culling campaigns or rapid legal changes can place thousands of dogs at immediate risk. Thailand is not currently experiencing that kind of pressure.

Instead, much of the country’s dog management strategy continues to focus on vaccination, sterilisation and long-term population control. Animal welfare organisations, veterinary groups and local authorities have spent years investing in catch-neuter-vaccinate-return programmes designed to reduce dog populations gradually while improving welfare and controlling disease.

This approach can be seen throughout the country, including on the islands that many tourists associate with street dogs.

Visitors to places such as Koh Samui and Phuket often leave believing they have witnessed a dog crisis. What they have usually witnessed is visibility. The dogs are there. They can be seen. They form part of the landscape of local communities.

That does not mean life is easy for them. Dogs still face disease, injury, abandonment and the daily challenges associated with living outdoors. Rescue groups continue to work tirelessly to improve welfare standards and reduce suffering. But those welfare challenges are different from the systemic threats that define a genuine crisis zone.

Thailand also continues to face rabies challenges, which is why vaccination programmes remain such an important part of national policy. Authorities periodically respond to outbreaks with increased vaccination efforts and public health campaigns. Crucially, however, the dominant response remains disease prevention and population management rather than attempts to remove dogs from public spaces altogether.

History shows that countries can move very quickly from managing free-roaming dogs to trying to eliminate them from public view. Once that happens, questions begin to emerge about capacity, oversight, transparency and what happens to the dogs after collection. Thailand is not currently on that path.

The country still faces significant animal welfare challenges, and no one should pretend otherwise. But the evidence does not suggest that Thailand is experiencing the kind of large-scale systemic threat that would place it on the Dog Desk Crisis Zone or Watchlist lists.

In fact, Thailand serves as an important reminder that a country can have a lot of free-roaming dogs and still not be in crisis. The true measure of a crisis is not how many dogs people can see, it is the level of risk those dogs face.

And at present, Thailand’s dogs face welfare challenges, but not the kind of systemic threat that defines a genuine crisis zone.

Share

The Current Global Picture

Dog Desk Animal Action Global Dog Crisis Zone Assessment (May 2026). Classifications are based on Dog Desk Animal Action’s assessment of publicly available information, field observations, and identified risk factors. They are not scientific rankings or peer-reviewed research.

The map shows Dog Desk Animal Action's current assessment of countries where dogs may be facing elevated systemic risks. These classifications are based on publicly available information, field observations, welfare trends, policy developments, and our assessment of factors that may affect large numbers of dogs. They are intended to highlight pressure, vulnerability, and emerging concerns rather than measure overall animal welfare standards. Classifications may change as new information becomes available and should be viewed as informed assessments rather than scientific rankings.

Global Shelter Pressure Zones

Dog Desk Animal Action Global Shelter Pressure Zone Assessment (May 2026). These classifications reflect perceived pressures within shelter systems and may change as conditions evolve.

The map below shows Dog Desk Animal Action's current assessment of shelter system pressures around the world. A country may have relatively few free roaming dogs but still experience significant strain within its shelter network due to overcrowding, rising intake numbers, declining adoption rates, staffing shortages, disease pressures, or euthanasia. These classifications are intended to identify where shelter systems may be struggling to cope with demand and where dogs could be at increased risk as a result. As with all assessments within this project, classifications may change as conditions evolve.

Understanding The Difference Between A Crisis Zone And A Shelter Pressure Zone

Then move into the body of the article. Animal welfare is often understood through individual stories. A rescued puppy, a successful adoption, a shelter appeal, or a case of cruelty that captures public attention can help people connect with the experiences of individual animals and the people trying to help them. These stories are important and always will be. However, they do not always explain what is happening at a wider level.

A dog living on the streets in one country may face very different risks to a dog living on the streets somewhere else. In some places, governments are expanding collection programmes. In others, shelters are becoming increasingly overcrowded. Elsewhere, free-roaming dog populations remain relatively stable, supported by established welfare systems and long-term management strategies. Understanding these differences is becoming increasingly important as animal welfare challenges evolve around the world.

For that reason, Dog Desk Animal Action has launched two new projects: the Global Dog Crisis Zone Project and the Global Shelter Pressure Zone Project. Together, they are intended to help identify where dogs may be facing heightened risks and where animal welfare systems appear to be coming under growing strain.

Although the two projects are connected, they examine different issues. A Dog Crisis Zone is not simply a country with a large free-roaming dog population. Many countries have significant street dog populations without being in crisis. Instead, a crisis zone is a place where large numbers of dogs may be at risk because of policy changes, government interventions, environmental pressures, conflict, disease outbreaks, infrastructure failures, or other developments that have the potential to significantly affect their welfare. In these situations, the concern is often not the presence of dogs themselves, but what may happen to them next. Dogs may be facing large-scale collection programmes, confinement in systems with insufficient capacity, displacement during emergencies, or policies that are changing faster than humane alternatives can be implemented.

The Shelter Pressure Zone Project examines a different set of challenges. Some countries have relatively few free-roaming dogs but face significant pressures within their shelter systems. Rising intake numbers, overcrowding, staffing shortages, disease outbreaks, declining adoption rates, rescue fatigue, and increasing euthanasia can all place immense strain on shelters and rescue organisations. The United States is a good example of why shelter pressure deserves separate analysis. While it does not face a national street dog crisis comparable to some countries, many shelters continue to struggle with capacity issues and difficult decisions driven by limited resources. The risks in such situations exist not on the streets, but within the systems designed to care for dogs once they enter them.

One of the reasons we created separate projects is because animal welfare discussions often treat very different problems as though they are the same. A country can have a stable free-roaming dog population while its shelter system struggles. Another may have a severe street dog crisis but very little shelter infrastructure. A third may be introducing policies that could create future pressures even though a crisis has not yet emerged. By separating these issues, we hope to provide a clearer picture of the different challenges dogs face around the world.

It is also important to explain how these assessments are made. The Dog Desk Animal Action Crisis Zone and Shelter Pressure Zone projects are not scientific studies, peer-reviewed research papers, or formal academic rankings. They are welfare monitoring tools developed by Dog Desk Animal Action using a combination of publicly available information, field observations, and professional judgement built through years of practical experience.

Our assessments draw on legislation, government announcements, court decisions, media reporting, shelter capacity concerns, euthanasia data where available, welfare investigations, rescue sector observations, and broader developments that may affect large numbers of dogs. However, they are also informed by Dog Desk Animal Action’s own work. Over many years we have observed free-roaming dog populations, municipal shelter systems, rescue operations, community dog management programmes, and the real-world consequences of policy decisions. Those experiences provide valuable context when assessing emerging trends and understanding how systems behave when they come under pressure.

This means that our classifications are not based solely on what governments, municipalities, or organisations say they intend to do. They are also informed by what similar policies and circumstances have historically led to elsewhere. In some cases, a country may be placed on a watchlist not because a crisis already exists, but because a combination of factors suggests one could develop if current trends continue. Animal welfare crises rarely emerge overnight. More often, they develop gradually through a series of warning signs that become visible long before the wider public recognises that a problem exists. Part of the purpose of these projects is to identify those warning signs early and encourage discussion before pressures become crises.

No single measurement determines a country’s classification. Instead, assessments are based on a range of indicators that may include collection or removal programmes affecting large numbers of dogs, shelter capacity concerns, euthanasia rates where reliable information is available, legislative changes, disease outbreaks, conflict, displacement, transparency within welfare systems, and evidence that existing infrastructure is struggling to cope with demand. The significance of these indicators varies from country to country, and the quality of available information can differ enormously between regions. For that reason, classifications should be viewed as informed assessments rather than definitive measurements.

It is equally important to recognise what these classifications do not mean. No country is free from animal welfare challenges. Every rescue organisation faces pressures. Every shelter system experiences constraints. Every municipality must balance competing demands on resources, infrastructure, public expectations, and animal welfare obligations. A country classified as stable is not a country where dogs never suffer. It does not mean shelters are never overcrowded, that abandonment never occurs, or that difficult welfare issues do not exist. Likewise, a country classified as a crisis zone is not a country where every shelter, veterinarian, municipality, or rescue organisation is failing. In many cases, dedicated professionals and volunteers are working tirelessly under extremely difficult circumstances to improve outcomes for animals.

The purpose of these projects is therefore not to rank countries, pass judgment, or create league tables of good and bad performers. Nor are they intended to justify euthanasia, culling, or the killing of healthy dogs as a population management tool. Dog Desk Animal Action remains firmly opposed to the killing of healthy dogs as a solution to animal welfare challenges. Instead, these projects are intended to identify risk, monitor pressure, examine trends, and encourage informed discussion about where dogs may be most vulnerable.

Ultimately, these projects are an attempt to look beyond individual rescue stories and consider the wider systems in which those stories occur. Some dogs become internationally recognised symbols of suffering or survival, while others disappear into overcrowded shelters, collection facilities, conflict zones, or underfunded welfare systems that receive little public attention. By examining patterns, pressures, and emerging risks, we hope to contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges facing dogs around the world.

No animal welfare system is perfect, and no country is without problems. What matters is not whether challenges exist, but how those challenges are changing, whether systems have the capacity to respond, and whether warning signs are being recognised before larger crises emerge. Understanding where pressure exists today may be one of the best ways to prevent suffering tomorrow.

Share

Jordan is not currently a full-scale stray dog crisis zone like Türkiye. There is no evidence of nationwide emergency dog removals, industrial-scale shelter expansion, or the kind of openly escalating collection system now dominating headlines elsewhere. But during 2025 and 2026, enough warning signs have emerged for Jordan to move onto Dog Desk Animal Action’s watch list.

The reason is not simply that stray dogs exist. Stray dogs exist in many countries. The concern is that Jordan is beginning to experience the same early-stage pressures that have preceded wider welfare crises elsewhere: growing public fear, political pressure to reduce visible dog populations, expanding municipal collection systems, and uncertainty over whether humane infrastructure can realistically absorb what may come next.

Reporting throughout the past year shows the debate around stray dogs intensifying significantly. Media coverage increasingly frames the issue through the language of danger, public safety, attacks, and urgent intervention. Reports describe residents demanding action from municipalities while local authorities face mounting pressure to respond visibly and quickly. Once that shift happens, the atmosphere around street dogs changes rapidly. The discussion stops being centred on coexistence and begins focusing on removal.

There is also growing evidence that organised collection activity is expanding. In 2025, Jordanian media reported what officials described as a large and unprecedented campaign to collect stray dogs from the streets of Salt. The reports described coordinated municipal operations, specialist teams, transportation systems, and the movement of dogs away from populated areas. More recent reporting during 2026 confirmed the establishment of collection sites, veterinary facilities, transport vehicles, and expanded municipal programmes linked to dog capture and management.

Importantly, Jordan is not publicly promoting mass killing as policy. Authorities have repeatedly stated that poisoning and shooting dogs are illegal, while municipalities increasingly promote sterilisation, vaccination, and ABC programmes. Official statements describe dogs being captured, sterilised, vaccinated, and returned to their territories.

Jordan is not currently following the openly aggressive removal trajectory seen in Türkiye. But humane language alone does not automatically remove the risks. The critical question is whether the systems being built can genuinely cope if political pressure intensifies further.

Jordanian officials have already acknowledged that building shelters across every municipality is financially unrealistic. Reports continue to reference funding limitations, infrastructure challenges, veterinary shortages, and growing complaint volumes. Rescue groups meanwhile describe shelters already operating under pressure.

Stray dog crises rarely begin with a government openly announcing that a system is failing. More often, they begin with rising public pressure to deal with dogs quickly. Collection programmes expand. Municipalities begin removing larger numbers from public spaces. But the infrastructure needed to absorb those dogs safely, shelters, veterinary care, funding, oversight and long-term capacity develop far more slowly.

That is the danger point. Because once removals begin accelerating faster than humane systems can realistically cope with, transparency becomes harder to maintain. Dogs disappear from the streets, but the public no longer sees where they end up, how they are being housed, or what happens when facilities reach capacity.

Jordan has not reached that stage. But some of the early pressures that often appear before larger welfare crises are now visible at the same time, growing public demands for action, expanding municipal collection activity, and ongoing questions around infrastructure and long-term capacity.

That does not mean Jordan is inevitably heading toward crisis. But it does mean the situation deserves close attention before the gap between removals and humane capacity becomes too large to manage safely.

Share

In July 2024, the Turkish government passed a controversial law requiring municipalities to remove street dogs from public spaces and place them into shelters or municipal facilities. Dogs considered aggressive, terminally ill, or posing a risk can legally be euthanised under certain provisions.

Animal welfare groups immediately warned that the country did not have the infrastructure to safely absorb the numbers involved. Türkiye itself estimates there are around four million free-roaming dogs across the country.

But official shelter capacity has repeatedly been cited at roughly 100,000–110,000 spaces nationwide. That gap is at the heart of the crisis.

What Has Changed Since 2024?

The biggest shift is that collection is no longer theoretical. Authorities are now actively pushing municipalities to accelerate removals.

In early 2025, the Interior Ministry reportedly clarified that municipalities could not wait until 2028 to begin collecting dogs, despite shelter construction timelines extending to that date. Municipalities were warned they could face penalties for failing to remove animals from the streets.

By 2026, pressure intensified further.

Istanbul Governor Davut Gül publicly stated there would eventually be not a single stray dog on the streets and warned municipalities that delays would not be tolerated.

Separate reporting this month stated Istanbul authorities ordered municipalities to speed up collections before the end of May and threatened legal consequences for failures to comply.

Why Rescuers Are Calling It A Crisis Zone

The country is now experiencing mass municipal collection campaigns, legal pressure on local authorities, growing use of confinement, shrinking tolerance for free-roaming dogs, increasing public polarisation and a widening gap between dog numbers and available infrastructure.

The concern from rescuers is not only what happens during collection. It is what happens after.

When dogs disappear into overcrowded systems without sufficient transparency, staffing, veterinary care, rehabilitation capacity, or adoption pathways, the risk moves beyond simple sheltering failure.

That is why activists and welfare organisations repeatedly warn about overcrowding, disease, neglect, and unlawful euthanasia concerns. The debate inside Türkiye has become deeply emotionally and politically charged.

Supporters of the law argue that public safety incidents, dog attacks, traffic accidents, and rabies concerns forced government intervention. Opponents argue the country is attempting to remove millions of animals without the humane infrastructure necessary to do so safely.

The Collapse Of The Old System

For years, Türkiye officially operated under a sterilise-vaccinate-return model. Street dogs were supposed to be neutered, vaccinated, treated, and returned to the areas where they lived.

Critics of the old system argue municipalities failed to implement sterilisation at sufficient scale. Critics of the new system argue the state is now responding to those failures with large-scale confinement and collection policies that the infrastructure still cannot support.

That contradiction sits at the centre of today’s crisis.

Where Türkiye Stands Today

Türkiye is no longer debating whether free-roaming dogs should exist alongside people. The state has already chosen a direction. Dogs are now being removed from public spaces at increasing speed, while municipalities face growing pressure to prove they are doing it.

That has created a new reality across the country, dogs leaving the streets faster than humane long-term solutions are being built for them.

This is why the situation has become a crisis.

Not simply because dogs are being collected but because nobody can clearly explain what happens to millions of dogs once the collections accelerate beyond the system’s capacity.

Share

For years, India’s street dog debate has existed in a tense balance between public safety concerns and animal welfare protections. That balance now appears to be shifting.

In May 2026, the Supreme Court of India issued one of the most significant stray dog rulings the country has seen in years. The ruling upheld sterilisation and vaccination programmes under India’s Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, but it also directed authorities to remove dogs from areas such as schools, hospitals, bus stations, railway stations and other high-footfall public spaces. In some cases, dogs are now expected to be permanently relocated to shelters rather than returned to the streets.

At the same time, the court confirmed that euthanasia may legally be used for rabid dogs, incurably ill dogs, or animals proven to be dangerously aggressive under veterinary protocols.

On paper, these directions may sound structured and controlled. The real question is whether India has the infrastructure to carry them out humanely. That is where the situation begins to resemble the warning signs seen in other crisis regions.

Across multiple states, authorities are already acknowledging major shortages in shelter capacity, sterilisation infrastructure, trained veterinary staff, quarantine facilities and long-term funding.

The Supreme Court itself recognised that implementation would require enormous infrastructure expansion and coordination between local authorities, shelters and welfare groups. Yet public pressure is escalating faster than capacity is being built.

In Kerala, authorities are reportedly struggling to comply with existing court directives to clear dogs from sensitive public areas because there are simply not enough facilities to house them.

In Punjab, officials have announced plans to intensify removals following the Supreme Court’s latest ruling.

In Bhopal, new government shelters are now being developed specifically to hold dogs removed from no dog zones.

This is the core issue now facing India, what happens when a country begins removing very large numbers of dogs without an equivalent expansion in humane long term care?

Animal welfare groups fear overcrowded shelters, disease outbreaks, neglect and rising mortality inside containment systems. Some activists argue the country is moving toward a model of mass confinement that could become unmanageable at scale.

Others insist stronger intervention is unavoidable because public confidence in existing street dog management has collapsed after repeated reports of attacks and rabies fears.

This is what makes India’s situation more than a stray dog debate. The country is entering a period of growing policy instability, where pressure is shifting away from coexistence and toward control. The discussion is no longer only about sterilisation and vaccination. It is increasingly becoming a debate about removing dogs from public spaces, expanding confinement systems, legal responsibility after attacks, who has the right to shared urban spaces, the growing role of the courts and whether existing systems can realistically support humane coexistence in densely populated cities.

At the centre of it all are the dogs themselves caught between rising public pressure and systems that may not be prepared for the consequences of large scale removal.

The Supreme Court has even directed High Courts across India to monitor compliance with stray dog management orders, signalling that this issue is now being treated as a national governance challenge rather than a local nuisance complaint.

Meanwhile, welfare organisations continue warning that reactive policies implemented without infrastructure can rapidly create suffering on a massive scale.

India has not formally adopted a nationwide extermination policy. But the country is undeniably entering a new phase in its relationship with free-roaming dogs, one defined by rising pressure, legal intervention, public fear, and growing uncertainty over what humane management will actually look like in practice.

For rescuers and street dog advocates, that uncertainty is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Share

Across parts of Pakistan, the debate over street dogs is no longer simply about population control. It is becoming a confrontation between public fear, municipal pressure, animal welfare law, and the growing question of whether authorities are obeying the courts at all.

In recent months, Pakistan’s courts have issued some of the clearest legal rejections of indiscriminate dog killing seen anywhere in South Asia. Judges have repeatedly stated that healthy street dogs cannot simply be poisoned, shot, or removed as a matter of policy. Humane management, vaccination, sterilisation, veterinary oversight, and documented decision-making were supposed to replace mass culling campaigns.

But reports emerging from Lahore and wider Punjab suggest the reality on the ground may look very different.

According to recent reporting, dog culling operations are allegedly continuing in parts of Lahore despite undertakings given to the Lahore High Court that humane control measures would be implemented instead. Witnesses described dead dogs being dumped in open areas, allegations of poisoning and gunshot killings, and ongoing municipal collection drives.

The scale of the wider crisis is becoming harder to ignore.

Media estimates suggest more than 50,000 street dogs are killed annually in Pakistan through poisoning and shooting campaigns. The article described Punjab as facing a grave stray dog crisis and argued that authorities are openly disregarding both animal welfare law and court rulings. At the same time, authorities continue to point to rising bite incidents and rabies fears.

Official figures stated that over 3,000 people had reportedly been injured by street dogs in Punjab within ten months, while several deaths were also reported. High-profile attacks involving children have intensified public pressure on local governments to remove dogs rapidly from urban areas. This is where Pakistan’s crisis becomes especially significant.

The country is now caught between two competing realities. One reality is public fear. Many residents are genuinely frightened after bite incidents and rabies concerns. Families want safer streets. Politicians and municipalities are under pressure to show immediate action. The other reality is that courts, animal welfare organisations, and veterinary advocates increasingly argue that indiscriminate killing is both unlawful and ineffective.

Pakistan’s judiciary has repeatedly pushed authorities toward CNVR programmes, catch, neuter, vaccinate and release rather than repeated culling campaigns. The Islamabad High Court recently imposed a permanent ban on poisoning, shooting, or indiscriminately killing street dogs, ruling that euthanasia should occur only in exceptional veterinary circumstances such as confirmed rabies or catastrophic suffering.

The court also reportedly demanded stronger record-keeping and transparency regarding captured, sterilised, vaccinated, released, or euthanised dogs. That detail matters more than it may initially appear. One of the biggest problems in street dog policy globally is the absence of independently verifiable data.

Authorities often announce large scale removals, sterilisation numbers, or euthanasia figures, but the public has little ability to verify what actually happened to the animals involved. Pakistan’s courts now appear to be recognising that transparency itself is becoming part of the crisis.

Yet despite the legal direction being set by the courts, allegations of ongoing culling continue to emerge. That contradiction is deeply important.

When courts prohibit indiscriminate killing but dogs continue to disappear, die, or allegedly turn up poisoned, it raises serious questions about enforcement, oversight, and institutional accountability.

Pakistan is not alone in this pattern.

Around the world, street dog crises often escalate when governments attempt to rapidly reduce visible dog populations without the infrastructure, funding, veterinary systems, or long-term management strategies required to sustain humane control programmes.

Mass killing can reduce numbers temporarily, but unless sterilisation coverage, vaccination, waste management, and public health systems improve simultaneously, dog populations often rebound. Courts in Pakistan are now openly acknowledging this argument.

The situation in Punjab increasingly resembles a system under strain rather than one moving toward stability.

Municipal authorities face pressure to act quickly after attacks. Animal welfare groups call out unlawful killing. Courts issue rulings demanding humane alternatives. Residents continue reporting fear and frustration. Meanwhile, the dogs remain trapped in the middle.

What makes Pakistan particularly important to watch now is not only the suffering of the animals themselves, but the wider signal it sends about how governments respond when public pressure, fear, and visible street dog populations collide.

The question facing Pakistan is no longer whether street dogs are controversial. The question is whether humane management systems can survive once political pressure intensifies. And in parts of Punjab, that answer is beginning to look increasingly uncertain.

Share

Questions are being raised following a meeting of the Ankara Provincial Animal Protection Board after figures reportedly presented during the session indicated that approximately 59,000 dogs had been collected across Ankara over the past 1.5 years and that around 31,000 had been recorded as having died from natural causes.

The figures emerged through statements published after the meeting by individuals who attended the session. According to those accounts, the numbers formed part of a presentation delivered during the board meeting held on 4 June 2026.

At the time of writing, Dog Desk Animal Action has not independently reviewed the presentation itself or the underlying records from which the figures were reportedly drawn. However, the reported statistics are significant enough to warrant public attention and clarification.

If accurate, the figures would indicate that approximately 31,000 of the 59,000 dogs collected during the period were subsequently recorded as natural deaths.

That raises important questions.

What criteria were used to determine that these deaths were natural? What records support those classifications? Over what exact period were the figures recorded? How many of the animals died while in municipal care, and how many were transferred, adopted or otherwise accounted for?

These are not questions of ideology or politics. They are questions of transparency.

Public confidence in animal welfare systems depends upon accurate data, accessible records and clear explanations. When figures involving tens of thousands of animals are presented during official meetings, it is reasonable for members of the public, animal welfare organisations and advocates to seek further information about how those figures were compiled and what they mean.

The issue is not simply that a large number has been reported. It is that the reported explanation attached to those deaths has prompted concern among those who attended the meeting and heard the presentation.

Across Turkey, the management of collected street dogs remains one of the most contentious animal welfare issues in the country. As municipalities continue collecting animals from streets and communities, scrutiny of outcomes within shelters and municipal facilities is likely to increase.

For that reason, the reported figures presented at the Ankara Provincial Animal Protection Board meeting deserve clarification.

If approximately 31,000 collected dogs were recorded as having died from natural causes, the public has a legitimate interest in understanding how that conclusion was reached and what evidence supports it.

Dog Desk Animal Action will continue monitoring developments and will update this article should the presentation, supporting documentation or official clarification become publicly available.

Share