Riot police, pepper spray, students dragged along the ground and dogs loaded into municipal collection vehicles. These were the scenes at Ege University in İzmir during an overnight operation that descended into violent confrontation on 16–17 October.

Students and animal welfare advocates attempted to prevent the removal of dogs they had cared for over many years. Footage circulating widely on social media shows police confronting protesters, with officers using pepper spray and people being dragged along the ground.

There are further accounts of plastic bullets being fired and a municipal vehicle being driven towards protesters. These allegations have not yet been independently verified.

The operation began late on Friday, when municipal vehicles accompanied by police arrived at an animal care area behind student accommodation on the university’s Bornova campus. As news spread, students, academics and animal welfare advocates gathered while police restricted access and collection teams removed the dogs.

Students also described animals being taken from university accommodation grounds, beyond the main rehabilitation area.

Nine Years of Animal Care

Since 2017, the Ege University Animal Rights Society had operated a rehabilitation programme on land allocated by the university.

Students and volunteers provided food, veterinary treatment, sterilisation, behavioural rehabilitation and adoption support. Some purchased food using their own allowances, investing years of work and personal resources in the animals’ care.

The operation therefore involved dogs already receiving organised support through an established university programme, rather than animals without anyone taking responsibility for them.

The removal of these dogs provoked an immediate reaction from the people who had been looking after them, leading to the confrontations witnessed during the night.

The Violence at Ege University

The use of force against students and animal welfare advocates has become one of the most disturbing aspects of the incident.

Beyond the pepper spray and physical confrontations visible in the footage, the accounts involving plastic bullets and a vehicle being driven towards demonstrators raise additional concerns. Whether anyone sustained injuries, and the full circumstances surrounding these incidents, remain unclear.

The confrontation has attracted considerable attention, with animal welfare advocates organising a gathering outside Bornova Government House on Saturday evening.

Where Have the Dogs Gone?

Students were informed that the animals would be transported to municipal shelters. However, the information available on Saturday morning does not establish which facilities received them, how many dogs were transferred or whether their former carers have been able to check on their welfare.

Some of the animals had been receiving medical treatment or rehabilitation, making continuity of care particularly relevant. It is not known whether their existing veterinary records and individual care information accompanied them.

The final number of dogs removed also remains unconfirmed, with estimates of the population in the affected areas ranging from 150 to 200.

The events at Ege University have exposed a deeply troubling reality: even an established animal welfare programme, supported by years of voluntary work, can find itself at the centre of a confrontation of this magnitude.

Beyond the immediate outrage lies a more enduring concern about the future of community-led animal welfare in Türkiye. If programmes built around sterilisation, treatment and rehabilitation cannot offer stability for the animals in their care, what future is there for the people working tirelessly to provide humane solutions?

That question extends far beyond the gates of Ege University.

Share

Hong Kong is moving from Stable to Watchlist on the Dog Desk Animal Action Global Stray Dog Crisis Map. The decision follows newly disclosed euthanasia figures and the introduction of an intensified four-month operation to capture unattended dogs.

For a dog living on the streets of Hong Kong, being captured does not necessarily mean being rescued. It can mean permanent removal from the community, an assessment of whether the animal is suitable for adoption and, in some circumstances, euthanasia.

This is not a new policy, but recent developments have brought its consequences into sharper focus.

On 8 October 2026, Hong Kong’s Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) announced a four-month operation targeting unattended dogs in areas associated with dog attacks or concentrations of roaming animals. The announcement followed heightened public concern about dog-related incidents, including a suspected fatal attack in Yuen Long.

The department says its officers will check captured dogs for identification and attempt to locate their keepers. Unclaimed dogs considered healthy and suitable for adoption may be transferred to animal welfare organisations. Those assessed as aggressive or otherwise unsuitable for rehoming may eventually be euthanised.

What is particularly significant is that unclaimed dogs are not returned to the communities from which they were taken, even following sterilisation.

For these animals, capture is therefore not a temporary intervention. Their future depends on the decisions made after they enter the government’s animal-management system.

More Than 600 Dogs Euthanised

On 14 October, new figures disclosed to Hong Kong’s Legislative Council provided a clearer picture of what has been happening to captured unattended dogs.

Between 2021 and May 2026, 617 were euthanised. The proportion of captured dogs euthanised reportedly increased from approximately 18% in 2021 to nearly one in three during the first five months of 2026.

These figures deserve attention, but they also require careful interpretation. An increase in the proportion euthanised does not necessarily mean that more dogs are being killed each year. The total number captured, the condition of those animals and the reasons behind individual euthanasia decisions are all important.

Nevertheless, the figures establish that euthanasia remains a significant outcome for dogs entering Hong Kong’s capture system.

They also raise questions that have not yet been adequately answered.

How many dogs were euthanised because of serious illness or suffering? How many were assessed as unsuitable for adoption because of their behaviour? What standards are used in making those assessments, and how much opportunity is given to dogs that are frightened, distressed or difficult to handle immediately after capture?

A terrified street dog may behave very differently inside an unfamiliar kennel from the way it behaves in a familiar community. That does not mean every dog can safely be rehomed, but it does mean that behavioural assessments must be careful, informed and fair.

The distinction between a genuinely dangerous animal and one responding to fear or confinement can be the difference between life and death.

What Happens When the Dogs Cannot Go Back?

Hong Kong’s approach differs from programmes in which healthy, sterilised and vaccinated community dogs are returned to their original territories.

Under the AFCD’s current policy, unclaimed dogs are not released back onto the streets. Instead, suitable animals may be transferred to welfare organisations for adoption.

There is a positive element to this approach. The government has supported the establishment of three rehoming centres with a combined capacity of approximately 450 animals, and a fourth is planned.

But the existence of rehoming facilities does not, by itself, answer whether sufficient places are available for every suitable dog entering the system. Nor does it explain what happens when an animal cannot immediately be placed.

The new four-month capture operation makes these questions more pressing. If the number of dogs entering government facilities increases, the system must be capable of providing appropriate accommodation, veterinary care, behavioural support and genuine opportunities for rehoming.

A policy that depends upon adoption must be judged not only by the number of animals captured, but by what happens to them afterwards.

Addressing the Cause, Not Simply Removing the Dogs

There is another issue that deserves equal attention: how dogs come to be living unattended in the first place.

Abandonment, irresponsible ownership, uncontrolled breeding and failures in identification and enforcement all contribute to free-roaming dog populations.

Removing dogs may respond to an immediate public safety concern, particularly where serious attacks have occurred. Authorities have a responsibility to protect people, and genuine risks cannot simply be ignored.

But repeated capture does not necessarily resolve the conditions that produce new unattended dogs.

Without effective prevention, responsible ownership measures, accessible sterilisation, identification and enforcement against abandonment, the same problems can continue.

It is therefore important that Hong Kong’s proposed dog-control reforms address the responsibilities of people as well as the consequences faced by animals.

A dog should not be the only one held accountable for a situation it did not create.

Why Hong Kong Is Moving to Watchlist

Dog Desk Animal Action is changing Hong Kong’s classification from Stable to Watchlist on our Global Stray Dog Crisis Map.

This is not because the government has announced an indiscriminate cull. It has not. The AFCD maintains procedures for identification, assessment and transfer to animal welfare organisations, and these must be recognised.

Our concern is the combination of a substantial euthanasia proportion, intensified capture operations and a policy under which unclaimed dogs cannot return to their communities.

We will be watching for the outcomes of the four-month operation, including the numbers captured, reclaimed, rehomed and euthanised. We also want greater transparency around the reasons for euthanasia and the assessment procedures used.

Public safety and animal welfare should not be treated as competing objectives. A responsible approach must protect communities while ensuring that animals are treated humanely, that killing is not used as a substitute for effective population management and that preventable suffering is addressed at its source.

Hong Kong’s street dogs deserve more than removal from public view. They deserve a system in which their individual lives and futures are taken seriously.

Share

Sources

• Hong Kong Government, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department — announcement of intensified capture operations, 8 October 2026.

• Hong Kong Government — Legislative Council response concerning unattended dogs, capture and euthanasia, 14 October 2026.

Four very young puppies were collected from Hacettepe University’s Beytepe Campus in Ankara on 10 October 2026, prompting concerns about the methods used to remove them and what has happened to them since.

According to information made public by the Animal Rights Confederation (HAYKONFED), the puppies were so young that their milk teeth had not yet erupted. The organisation alleges that they were administered anaesthetic medication before being transported away in a commercial vehicle bearing an Ankara registration.

The circumstances have raised an immediate question: why would puppies of such a young age need to be sedated for collection?

Sedation can be necessary in certain circumstances, particularly when an animal cannot be handled safely or requires a medical procedure. However, very young puppies would ordinarily be expected to be manageable using gentle handling and suitable transportation equipment. The decision to administer medication should take account of the individual animal’s age, weight, health and circumstances.

Puppies are particularly vulnerable to complications associated with sedation and anaesthesia. Their immature physiology, limited ability to regulate body temperature and susceptibility to low blood glucose require careful assessment, appropriate dosing and close monitoring.

If the puppies were as young as described, their age would also raise questions about their nutritional needs, whether they were still dependent on their mother and what arrangements were made for their care following collection.

HAYKONFED has questioned the reported administration of medication and requested information about the personnel involved, veterinary supervision, the drugs used and the puppies’ subsequent treatment. The organisation has also sought access to collection documentation, veterinary records and CCTV footage.

The allegation that high doses of anaesthetic were administered is particularly concerning, although determining whether a dose was excessive would require information about the medication, the quantity administered, the puppies’ individual weights and their clinical condition.

There is a difference between sedation being medically justified and sedation being carried out safely. Both questions are relevant here.

The reported use of a commercial vehicle raises further questions about transportation arrangements, particularly for animals of such a young age. Puppies require suitable ventilation, protection from temperature extremes and appropriate monitoring during transport. If they had received sedative medication, their condition during the journey would be especially important.

At present, the identity of the collection team and the facility to which the puppies were reportedly taken have not been established in the information publicly available. Nor has a subsequent update been identified confirming their health, welfare or current whereabouts.

This is perhaps the most pressing aspect of the case. Whatever the circumstances of their collection, the immediate concern is whether all four puppies are safe, receiving appropriate veterinary care and, if still dependent on their mother, having their developmental and nutritional needs met.

The incident comes against the background of changes to Türkiye’s animal protection legislation introduced in 2024, which increased municipal responsibilities for collecting free-roaming dogs and accommodating them in designated facilities.

Hacettepe University’s Beytepe Campus has previously been the subject of animal collection activity. In July 2026, reports described an operation involving multiple municipalities during which 39 dogs were reportedly removed from the campus. That earlier operation is separate from the allegations concerning the four puppies in October.

The latest concerns demonstrate why the circumstances of individual collection operations deserve careful attention. Age, health, handling methods, veterinary oversight and transportation arrangements can all have a significant bearing on animal welfare, particularly when very young or medically vulnerable animals are involved.

HAYKONFED has indicated that it is pursuing information through formal channels, including documentation that may help establish what occurred on 10 October.

For now, the most important questions remain unanswered. Were the puppies sedated, and if so, why was this considered necessary? Was a veterinarian responsible for assessing and supervising the procedure? Where were the puppies taken, and what arrangements were made for their care?

Above all, where are the four puppies today, and are they safe?

Share

As the Philippines prepares to welcome international leaders to Metro Manila in November, reports of street dogs being captured and impounded have raised concerns about what happens to the animals once they are removed from public view.

The 49th ASEAN Summit is scheduled for 16 to 18 November 2026, bringing together government leaders from across Southeast Asia. Preparations are underway, including security arrangements, traffic management and operations intended to ensure public spaces are ready for the event.

Among those preparations are reported operations involving the collection of free-roaming animals from the streets.

On 13 October, Philippine news outlet Interaksyon reported concerns raised by animal welfare organisation CARA Welfare Philippines about the possible impoundment of community dogs ahead of the summit. The report referred to an earlier television broadcast, dated 2 October, describing cooperation between the Philippine National Police and Pasay City authorities on street-clearing operations, including the capture of stray animals for impoundment.

CARA issued an advisory encouraging residents and community carers to remain vigilant, while distinguishing the reported operations from unverified claims circulating online.

The concern now is what happens to the dogs after they are captured, particularly given the country’s laws governing municipal impoundment.

Three Days in a Municipal Pound

Under the Philippines’ Anti-Rabies Act of 2007, Republic Act No. 9482, local authorities are empowered to capture and impound stray, unregistered and unvaccinated dogs.

Section 9 provides that dogs remaining unclaimed after three days may be offered for adoption, with assistance from animal welfare organisations where feasible, or otherwise disposed of through legally authorised procedures.

This means a dog entering a municipal pound may face a decision about its future after only three days. Euthanasia is among the outcomes permitted under applicable animal welfare law, although it is not automatic.

For community dogs, this creates a particular problem. Many free-roaming dogs are not entirely without human care. They may have lived in the same neighbourhood for years, be recognised by residents and receive regular food from people who consider them part of their community.

If one of those dogs is collected during a street-clearing operation, how would the people caring for it know where to find it? Would they even be aware that it had been impounded? And could they locate and reclaim it before the three-day period expired?

Where Are the Captured Dogs Going?

Pasay City operates an animal control facility through its City Veterinary Office. The city has previously stated that its animal management services include impoundment, vaccination and adoption.

In November 2025, the city administration publicly rejected allegations about the killing of impounded animals using vehicle exhaust fumes, stating that its facility operated in accordance with national animal welfare requirements.

Those statements concerned an earlier controversy. They do not establish what is happening during the present summit preparations.

The reported operations have not been accompanied by publicly identified figures showing how many dogs have been collected, where they have been taken or their subsequent outcomes.

These are the records Dog Desk Animal Action is seeking from the Pasay City Veterinary Office, alongside clarification about arrangements for community carers attempting to locate dogs removed from their neighbourhoods.

When Public Events Change the Lives of Street Animals

Major international events place considerable pressure on host cities to present an orderly and welcoming environment. But the presence of community dogs cannot be responsibly addressed simply by removing them from sight.

There is a difference between routine animal-control work undertaken for public safety and intensified collection operations associated with preparations for an international event.

If dogs are being collected specifically because the summit is approaching, the authorities should be able to explain why the removals are necessary, what safeguards are in place and how the animals are being cared for.

Removing a dog from the street does not resolve the responsibility for that animal. It transfers that responsibility to the authority that captured it.

Philippines Remains on Watchlist

The Philippines is currently classified WATCHLIST on the Dog Desk Animal Action Global Stray Dog Crisis Map.

The reported collections warrant further investigation, but there is not yet sufficient evidence to justify changing the country’s classification. There is also no confirmed evidence that dogs collected during these preparations have been euthanised.

The ASEAN Summit will last three days. For a dog captured and placed in a municipal pound, three days may be enough to determine whether it ever leaves alive.

The world may see “clean streets” when international leaders arrive in Manila. We want to know what has happened to the dogs who were living on those streets before the preparations began.

Supporting Sources

1. Interaksyon — 13 October 2026. Animal org raises alarm over claims of pet impounding ahead of ASEAN Summit. Reports CARA Welfare Philippines’ advisory and the earlier report of street-animal impoundment in Pasay City.

2. Republic Act No. 9482 — Anti-Rabies Act of 2007. Philippine Supreme Court E-Library. Section 9 establishes the three-day impoundment provision and subsequent disposition of unclaimed dogs.

3. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9482. Philippine Supreme Court E-Library. Further provisions concerning animal impoundment and rabies-control responsibilities.

4. Philippine Information Agency — October 2026. NCRPO beefs up inter-agency coordination for ASEAN Summit in November. Official information concerning summit security preparations.

5. Manila Bulletin — 6 November 2025. Mayor Emi rejects allegations concerning treatment of impounded animals in Pasay. Background on the city’s previous statements about its animal control facility.

Questions are being raised about the welfare and whereabouts of dogs collected by Lüleburgaz Municipality in Türkiye’s Kırklareli province.

At a public statement on 12 October, local animal welfare campaigners raised concerns about conditions at the municipality’s Temporary Animal Care Centre, including veterinary treatment, sterilisation and the procedures used to collect dogs from the streets.

Among the animals highlighted were dogs suffering from skin conditions and injuries, together with a mother dog that had given birth inside the facility. Campaigners are seeking information about the care these animals received and what subsequently happened to them.

Questions have also been raised about the use of sedatives during collection operations, whether veterinarians accompanied collection teams and whether any dogs died during or following collection.

The concerns are significant because collecting a dog is only the beginning of a municipality’s responsibility towards that animal. Dogs entering care may already be sick, injured or frightened. Some will need immediate treatment, others prolonged veterinary attention, and all require appropriate accommodation and handling.

Perhaps the most important question being asked in Lüleburgaz is a straightforward one: where are the dogs now?

Since Türkiye amended its animal protection legislation in 2024, municipalities have faced increased responsibilities for collecting free-roaming dogs and accommodating them in designated facilities. This has brought shelter capacity, veterinary resources and animal welfare outcomes into sharper focus.

Across Türkiye, considerable attention has been paid to the number of dogs collected from public spaces. Far less visible is the information needed to establish what happens afterwards.

How many dogs remain in municipal care? How many have been transferred to other facilities or adopted? How many have died, and what were the recorded causes? These figures are essential to understanding the consequences of collection policies, particularly when facilities are receiving large numbers of animals.

Accurate records are an important part of animal welfare management. They help ensure continuity of veterinary care, support the planning of resources and provide a clearer understanding of the needs and outcomes of animals entering municipal facilities.

The concerns raised by local campaigners deserve clear answers through the appropriate channels, with the welfare of the animals at the centre of that process.

A dog does not disappear from our responsibility when it disappears from the street. What happens next is every bit as important.

Share

In October 2025, an exchange on social media appeared to offer real hope for El Salvador’s street animals & we all welcomed it enthusiastically. President Nayib Bukele said thousands of dogs and cats were living on the country’s streets and that his government wanted to change this without cruelty. He said El Salvador had …

Read more

Mauritius has announced a new programme to address its roaming-dog population through mass sterilisation, international veterinary support and new refuge facilities.

The announcement sounds encouraging. The government says it will work with an international team on a mass sterilisation programme, establish a refuge at Ric…

Read more

Three weeks ago, Dog Desk Animal Action moved Zambia from Stable to Watchlist on our Global Stray Dog Crisis Map. Further investigation has now uncovered enough evidence for us to change that status again.

Zambia will move from WATCHLIST to CRISIS.

This is not because we have found a single nationwide order instructing e…

Read more

A group of Turkish lawyers have taken allegations concerning the treatment of street dogs following Türkiye’s 2024 legal changes to an international animal rights tribunal in Geneva.

On 2 October, Avukatın Sesi İnisiyatifi, Voice of the Lawyer Initiative held a press statement outside Istanbul’s Çağlayan Courthouse before submitting an application carryi…

Read more

Türkiye is carrying out an enormous change in the way it manages its street dogs. Dogs are being removed from streets and taken into shelters and natural living areas, new facilities are being built and existing ones expanded. With that comes a question that should be remarkably easy to answer: how many dogs enter the system, and what happens to them af…

Read more

Pakistan is beginning to move towards a different way of managing its street dogs. Courts have challenged indiscriminate killing, and vaccination, sterilisation and humane population management are increasingly being put forward as alternatives.

But in Punjab, lethal control has not disappeared.

New reporting from Sargodha says Union Council secretaries h…

Read more

Russia is already on the Dog Desk Animal Action Global Stray Dog Crisis Map Watchlist, but developments in Karachay-Cherkessia are giving us new reasons to look closely at what is happening there. Regional legislation has changed, emergency powers have been introduced and authorities can reportedly now capture street dogs even when they have previously …

Read more

Footage filmed in Eyüpsultan, Istanbul, shows a municipal street-animal collection team attending a residential area following what the person filming says was a complaint.

During the exchange, a municipal worker explains why the dogs are being collected. He refers to what he describes as a general directive from the Governorate and says that stray anima…

Read more

Read more

Chile is considering legislation that could allow dogs classified as feral to be killed in order to protect people, livestock, wildlife and biodiversity. The proposals have already progressed through the Agriculture Committee of the Chamber of Deputies during 2026, but they have not yet become law. That distinction is important. Chile has not authorised…

Read more

Jordan is building a national system to manage its stray-dog population. Nineteen shelters, a central database, sterilisation, vaccination and identification are all part of the developing programme.

At the same time, animal-welfare organisations are reporting large numbers of dogs living in the remote Safawi desert, alongside allegations that dogs have …

Read more

A fatal dog attack in Hong Kong has triggered an official review of the territory’s approach to stray dogs, with authorities already carrying out capture operations and confirming that dogs removed from the streets will not be returned to their original locations.

A 27-year-old woman died after an incident involving dogs in Yuen Long on 19 September. In …

Read more

Russia’s approach to street dogs is becoming increasingly fragmented. Regional governments now have considerable influence over what happens to a dog after capture, meaning their future may depend upon where in the country they are found.

Krasnoyarsk Krai has now reportedly brought detailed procedures governing the capture, temporary detention, return an…

Read more

The Kerala High Court has ordered the state’s high-level monitoring committee to submit monthly reports detailing how national directions on stray-dog management are being implemented.

The reports must be filed by the 10th of every month and state what action authorities have taken, how many dogs have been euthanised, whether the Supreme Court’s directio…

Read more

Manisa has published a substantial update on its stray-dog programme. We are told how much accommodation has been created, how many dogs have been sterilised, how many animals have been adopted and that most of the province’s stray animals have now been removed from the streets and incorporated into its care and rehabilitation system. The province even …

Read more