When discussions about free-roaming dogs arise, the same argument is often repeated. Dogs are breeding too quickly, populations are growing, public safety is at risk and therefore culling is the only realistic solution.
Afghanistan provides one of the strongest real world challenges to that argument.
Today, Afghanistan is not generally viewed as a success story in animal welfare. Decades of conflict, economic hardship and political instability have created immense challenges across every sector of society. Yet when it comes to managing free roaming dogs, the experience of Kabul offers one of the clearest demonstrations anywhere in the world that humane population management can achieve results that years of killing dogs failed to deliver.
For many years, Kabul relied on culling as its primary method of dog population control. Free roaming dogs were routinely poisoned as part of municipal dog management and rabies prevention efforts. The approach was based on a widely held assumption that reducing the number of visible dogs would reduce both public health risks and population growth.
The reality proved more complicated.
Like many cities around the world that rely on culling, Kabul found itself trapped in a cycle. Dogs were removed, populations declined temporarily, and then numbers recovered. The underlying factors driving overpopulation remained unchanged. Puppies continued to be born, unsterilised animals continued to reproduce and new dogs moved into areas where others had been removed. The visible problem would improve for a period before returning once again.
Recognising these limitations, a different approach began to emerge.
Working in partnership with Kabul Municipality, veterinary professionals and international animal welfare organisations developed a programme based on vaccination, sterilisation and population management rather than routine killing. The transition represented a significant shift in thinking. Instead of focusing on removing dogs, the programme focused on reducing reproduction, preventing disease and stabilising populations over time.
The results were remarkable.
Over the course of the programme, more than 132,000 dogs were vaccinated against rabies and more than 52,000 dogs were sterilised. Vaccination coverage exceeded the threshold widely regarded as necessary for effective rabies control, while sterilisation rates reached levels rarely achieved in large urban free-roaming dog populations.
Most importantly, the predictions made by supporters of culling failed to materialise.
The end of systematic dog killing did not lead to an uncontrolled explosion in dog numbers. Surveys found that dog populations remained broadly stable. At the same time, rabies control improved dramatically. Human rabies deaths in Kabul were eliminated during the programme period, demonstrating that public health objectives could be achieved without relying on mass killing.
The significance of this achievement extends far beyond Afghanistan.
Around the world, policymakers often face pressure to deliver rapid and visible results. Removing dogs from public spaces can create the appearance of action. It can reassure residents that authorities are responding to complaints. However, appearance and effectiveness are not always the same thing.
The experience of Kabul illustrates a principle that animal welfare researchers have documented repeatedly. Culling addresses the dogs that are present today but does little to prevent the dogs that will be born tomorrow. Unless reproduction is reduced and ownership practices improve, populations frequently recover. The result can be an endless cycle of killing without long term resolution.
This does not mean sterilisation alone is enough. One of the lessons emerging from modern population management is that no single intervention can solve dog overpopulation by itself. Sterilisation is essential, but it works best when combined with vaccination, education, responsible ownership, access to veterinary care and broader community engagement.
What makes Afghanistan particularly noteworthy is that these principles were applied successfully in circumstances that many observers would have considered impossible. If a city facing profound economic and political challenges can transition away from routine culling and achieve measurable improvements through humane management, it raises important questions about the continued reliance on killing as a population control strategy elsewhere.
That does not mean Afghanistan has solved every challenge associated with free roaming dogs. Much of the evidence comes from Kabul and less is known about conditions in other parts of the country. The long-term sustainability of the programme following political changes in recent years remains uncertain. Continued monitoring will be important to ensure that progress is maintained and that humane management remains the preferred approach.
For the purposes of the Dog Desk Animal Action Global Stray Dog Crisis Map, Afghanistan is currently classified as Stable. This classification does not suggest the absence of animal welfare challenges. Rather, it reflects the available evidence showing that the country’s most prominent dog population management programme has moved away from culling and towards humane, evidence based interventions.
In a world where many governments continue to debate whether dogs should be killed in order to control their numbers, Afghanistan offers a powerful reminder that there is another way.
The story of Kabul is not simply about dogs. It is about evidence. It is about recognising when long standing policies fail to achieve their objectives and having the courage to try something different. Most importantly, it demonstrates that humane approaches can protect both animal welfare and public health without forcing communities to choose between them.
At a time when some countries are moving towards greater collection, confinement and euthanasia of free roaming dogs, Afghanistan stands as an unexpected example of what can happen when policy is guided by population management rather than population destruction. The lesson is simple but important, killing dogs does not necessarily solve dog overpopulation and Kabul may be one of the clearest proofs of that fact anywhere in the world.