A Crisis for Stray Dog Welfare in Istanbul
The context
Today, the Istanbul Governor’s Office issued a directive banning the feeding of stray dogs in certain public locations across Istanbul near health and education institutions, airports, places of worship, parks and gardens, roadsides and playgrounds. The stated rationale is that uncontrolled feeding of stray dogs contributes to public-health risks, increases insect and rodent populations and creates environmental pollution.
On the surface this may seem a public-safety measure. Yet for us at Dog Desk Animal Action, it poses serious welfare, legal and ethical questions.
Legal basis under Law No. 5199 – How does the ban stack up?
Law No. 5199, enacted in 2004, sets out the purpose of animal protection in Turkey: to ensure that animals are afforded a comfortable life and receive good and proper treatment. Key obligations under 5199 include:
the prohibition of needless cruelty to animals
the requirement for municipalities to treat, vaccinate, sterilise stray animals and then release them back into their environment rather than simply eliminating them.
Given this legal framework, the question arises: Does banning feeding of stray dogs conflict with Law 5199?
Here are several points of concern:
Feeding stray dogs is an act of humanitarian care, a community-based welfare practice rather than abandonment or cruelty. If the law mandates proper treatment and living conditions for stray animals, a feeding ban may undermine that.
Law 5199 emphasises the responsible release of treated animals; restricting feeding may increase suffering, malnutrition or displacement of those animals, arguably inconsistent with the comfortable life objective.
In short: the directive appears to impose a restriction contrary to the spirit and arguably the letter of Law 5199, unless adequate compensatory mechanisms (shelters, care centres, release programmes) are already fully operational & adequately meeting the needs of homeless animals.
On citizens’ disobedience: Why people are risking it
Given these perceived legal and moral inconsistencies, many citizens and volunteers are understandably refusing to comply with the feeding ban. Their motivations include:
A deep-rooted humanitarian impulse to care for stray dogs who have no other food source.
A belief that obeying the ban would mean abandoning vulnerable animals to hunger, disease or removal to substandard shelters which do not meet their needs.
A sense of legal right – that feeding stray dogs is an act consistent with Law 5199’s protection of stray animals, and hence that the ban is illegitimate.
This uptake of civil disobedience, individuals continuing to feed stray dogs in defiance of the ban, is driven by conscience and contradiction.
The danger and consequences of civil disobedience
While civil disobedience can be morally justified, it also carries significant risks for the individuals, the animals, and the broader welfare cause:
Legal risk for feeders: Citizens who feed may face fines, warning, or other enforcement action. This could deter responsible feeders and push feeding underground, making monitoring harder.
Welfare risk for animals: Disobedience carried out in isolated or covert ways may mean animals are fed inconsistently, in unsafe locations, or by uncoordinated people. This could lead to greater risks (traffic, disease, abandonment).
Fractured relationships with authorities: When large numbers of citizens openly defy a directive, it can polarise municipal or provincial responses, possibly triggering stricter enforcement, crackdowns or even more punitive measures against stray animals.
Undermining coordinated response: Effective stray-dog welfare requires partnerships: feeders, volunteers, municipal vet services, NGOs. When feeders operate apart from official frameworks, opportunities for sterilisation, sheltering and data-tracking may be lost.
Public safety/backlash risk: Authorities justify bans by citing public-health or safety concerns. If civil disobedience leads (or is claimed to lead) to increased risks (dog bites, traffic accidents, pests), there may be a backlash that harms the welfare movement overall.
What should happen instead
To reconcile the feeding practice, citizens’ goodwill, stray-dog welfare and legal obligations under 5199, we advocate for:
Immediate dialogue between municipal authorities, animal-welfare NGOs, and volunteer feeders to establish regulated feeding zones where care is permitted, monitored and aligned with welfare goals in the best interests of the dogs.
Transparency and accountability: Municipalities must publish data on stray-dog population, sterilisation and vaccination rates, feeding-zones, and show the results of the ban: how many animals are rehomed, shelter capacity, etc.
Until shelters and treatment programmes are fully operational & able to adequately meet the dogs needs, feeding bans should be suspended.
Citizen-feeder networks should be recognised as partners, not adversaries. By registering feeders, defining safe feeding spaces/times, the welfare of stray dogs can be improved more efficiently than by blanket bans.
Conclusion
The recent feed-ban directive from the Istanbul Governor’s Office raises serious questions of legality under Law No. 5199, fairness, and the meaning of citizen responsibility. As an animal-welfare organisation, Dog Desk Animal Action holds that compassion should never be criminalised but nor should welfare programmes be carried out in a vacuum of infrastructure.
Civil disobedience is understandable but it is also fraught with risk, and will not deliver long-term solutions on its own. The path forward must be a partnership: law, policy, community and compassion working together.
We call on municipal authorities to pause the ban, open a structured consultation with feeders and animal-welfare groups, and commit to a transparent, humane, lawful approach that respects both stray dogs and citizens who care for them.