A Million-Lira Direct Procurement Network For Dog Collection In Manisa
A recent report from Manisa has raised serious concerns about public transparency, animal welfare, and the use of government funds. The mass collection and transport of stray dogs across several districts was handed to a single individual through direct procurement, bypassing the normal tender process.
This is not only a financial question it is a matter that touches on the rights, safety, and welfare of animals as well as the accountability of public institutions.
What Happened?
The collection and transfer of stray dogs in five districts of Manisa was contracted not through an open tender, but via direct procurement to a single individual, Taha Ege Kasapoğlu, operating under a personal company.
Across the five districts, the total value of these procurements reached 3,510,000 TL.
Distribution by District
Alaşehir — 720,000 TL
Şehzadeler — 675,000 TL (750 dogs)
Turgutlu — 720,000 TL (800 dogs)
Salihli — 720,000 TL (800 dogs)
Yunusemre — 675,000 TL (750 dogs)
It was also noted that the same individual has received similar contracts in other provinces for animal collection, feeding, shelter services, and veterinary work. This raises a pressing question:
Is this a coincidence or part of a systemic practice of channelling public funds to a specific person without competition?
Why Is This Causing Public Outrage?
1. Direct Procurement Instead of Tendering
Direct procurement completely bypasses competitive bidding.
For a major, sensitive public service especially one involving animal welfare transparency and competition are essential.
The choice to use direct procurement for millions of lira raises understandable suspicion.
2. Large Public Funds Entrusted to One Individual
When such large sums repeatedly flow to one person, ethical concerns arise.
Was the firm vetted?
Were other providers considered?
Is there oversight?
3. Risk to Animal Welfare
Animal collection contracts are often executed without sufficient monitoring.
When a single contractor handles multiple provinces without proper capacity, the consequences for animals can be dire:
poor handling, overcrowding, disease spread, neglect, or disappearance.
Animal Welfare Perspective
From the standpoint of Dog Desk Animal Action, this story is particularly troubling:
Stray dogs’ lives are being placed in the hands of a single, unmonitored contractor.
Public funds are being spent without transparency or ethical scrutiny.
The fate, health, and safety of hundreds potentially thousands of dogs remain unknown.
Given Turkey’s ongoing national debate around street dogs, this type of procurement only increases public alarm.
What Needs to Happen Next?
1. Full Transparency from Local Authorities
Authorities must publish:
The justification for direct procurement
Criteria used to select this individual
The contractor’s experience, capacity, and track record
Details of the service contract and monitoring process
2. Ensure Open, Competitive Tenders
Services involving living beings must never be treated as routine procurement.
Open bidding protects public interest and animals.3. Independent Monitoring of Collected Dogs
Animal welfare groups, veterinarians, and NGOs must be allowed to inspect:
Where the dogs are taken
Their medical care
Shelter conditions
Mortality and release records
4. Public Pressure & Civil Oversight
The public has the right to know how their money is being spent, especially when it concerns vulnerable animals who cannot speak for themselves.
Conclusion: Transparency, Accountability, and the Rights of Animals
The Manisa procurement scandal is about far more than financial irregularities.
It reveals systemic weaknesses in the oversight of animal welfare services and highlights the urgent need for transparency in local governance.
Dog Desk Animal Action and other advocacy groups must continue to monitor, report, and pressure authorities to ensure that no animal is mistreated, hidden, or discarded under the guise of municipal service.