"200 Dogs Demolition Crisis” in Uşak: What’s Going On?
What Happened
There’s a growing uproar in Uşak, Turkey over a demolition decision affecting an animal shelter area that currently houses nearly 200 dogs. The shelter is run by “Hayvanları Koruma Yaşatma Derneği” (Animal Protection & Survival Association). Local animal lovers are strongly criticizing the decision, saying it's not just a demolition but a decision that threatens the lives of the animals.
A rescuer named Hazal Karagür has made public statements expressing concern that many of these dogs were rescued from the streets, from euthanisation facilities, or from imminent danger. Now, she claims, they would be once again put at risk if the space is destroyed. She frames the decision as an “execution order” for 200 living beings
Reactions & Appeals
Hazal Karagür has addressed the public, politicians, and artists, calling on them to intervene. She argues that the decision ignores the animals’ right to live, and that this right shouldn’t be negotiable. She’s urging everyone to speak up, to protest, and to avoid letting “silence” allow what she calls “cruelty” to proceed.
There is particular concern from animal welfare circles, and from those who believe rescued or street animals deserve safe shelters and spaces. The idea that a place meant to protect them would be destroyed has struck a nerve in local and national discourse & now international discourse
What the Municipality Says
In response, the Uşak Municipality has issued a statement distancing itself from the demolition order. They assert:
The decision was not taken by the municipality, but by the Provincial Directorate of Agriculture (İl Tarım Müdürlüğü) and the Governor’s Office (Valilik), which they say are the competent authorities for this kind of regulation.
The municipality adds that its own animal care facility (“Hayvan Bakım Evi”) continues to operate, providing treatment, care, and shelter to stray or unowned animals. They emphasize that they are committed to giving these animals a safe, warm home
The Moral & Legal Issues
There are several tensions here:
Property rights vs. animal welfare
If the shelter is on private land (it appears Hazal Karagür may own or operate the ground), there’s a question whether regulatory authorities have legal standing to demand demolition, and under what conditions.Jurisdiction and responsibility
There is confusion or dispute over who legally decides such issues: the municipality vs provincial/state agencies. The municipality claims it was not responsible, putting forward that other bodies made the decision. This raises questions about accountability and transparency in how these decisions are made.Animal right vs development / regulation
Often in cases like this, authorities may cite safety concerns, zoning, environmental rules, or other regulations to justify demolition. Advocates for the animals argue that the right to life, shelter, and protection should be paramount (especially when these animals have already been rescued). Hazal Karagür frames it in exactly those terms.Public opinion and activism’s role
The response from the public could make a difference: protests, media attention, legal support, petitions. Hazal Karagür’s appeal to politicians, artists, and citizens shows that this is as much about moral pressure as legal or administrative channels.
Why It Matters
Lives at stake: This is not an abstract issue, nearly 200 dogs may lose their shelter, and many have already been rescued from life-threatening conditions. Losing shelter means returning to exposure, disease, accidents, starvation, fighting, etc.
Precedent: If such demolitions go ahead, it could set a precedent for how authorities treat privately or non-profit run shelters. It could discourage people from setting up rescue sites if these are always at risk of being shut down by regulation or demolition orders.
Accountability: This brings up questions about how local and provincial governance coordinate, how much transparency there is, and how much say the public and civil society have in decisions that affect vulnerable animals or other social welfare issues.
What to Watch Next
Will the demolition order be legally challenged? Is there a court case?
How will other animal rights groups respond nationally? Will they bring legal or advocacy support?
Will the authorities justify the demolition on regulatory, health, or safety grounds, and if so, how valid are those grounds?
What kind of oversight or guarantees will (or can) be put in place to ensure animal welfare if the space is shut down?
My Thoughts
As someone who cares about animal welfare, this story raises alarm bells. When we rescue animals, when we invest time, emotion, and resources into creating safe spaces, there must be stability and protection for those places. Otherwise, rescue efforts risk becoming temporary fixes, always subject to removal or destruction.
The principle of “life is not negotiable” is important here. If society claims to care, then legal frameworks, regulations, and administrative decisions should support that. Where they don’t, citizens need to act through media, through legal avenues, through public opinion.
All media in this blog is the intellectual property of Hazal Karagür, please follow her on instagram & support her efforts to keep 200 dogs in their home. You can find her here