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 the financial resources but needed expert partners capable of helping create a model for Latin America.
Niall Harbison responded that he would be willing to help. The exchange quickly gathered momentum, with Bukele replying: “Let’s do this!”
Harbison’s own account shows that he regarded the conversation as potentially much more than an informal offer of advice. Writing on his Substack on 12 October, he said that “the wheels are now in motion” and described El Salvador as a possible test case for a government-backed national programme. He explained that such a programme could demonstrate an approach for other countries to follow and said the work might eventually help millions of dogs. niallharbison.substack.com
Harbison subsequently travelled to El Salvador and met Bukele. Following that meeting, Bukele announced that they were creating what he called the world’s best nationwide stray-dog rescue programme together. Harbison shared the announcement and said they had discussed how to address the problem across an entire country, creating a model that other nations could one day copy. He thanked the people who had connected them and suggested they might have helped save millions of dogs in the years ahead. www.elsalvador.com
Those were hopeful words in a time of crisis for so many stray dogs globally, and there is no reason to assume that the people involved were not sincere. Meetings at this level can begin with considerable ambition but fail to become operating programmes for financial, legal, political or practical reasons. Harbison also acknowledged some uncertainty before travelling, writing: “Who knows where it will lead.”
However, the announcement was presented publicly as the beginning of a national collaboration. People who understood that a programme was being created did not invent the idea or misunderstand a vague rumour. That expectation came directly from statements made by Bukele and reinforced by Harbison before and after their meeting.
To establish whether the announced collaboration had progressed, Dog Desk Animal Action contacted Niall Harbison directly. Responding to our enquiry, he said: “We are not and have never been involved in any program in El Salvador. We had a meeting to discuss it but did not proceed with any programs.” Harbison also confirmed that, because neither he nor Happy Doggo was involved, he did not know whether the Salvadoran government had subsequently implemented a programme or published any results. His response establishes that the meeting took place but did not lead to a programme involving Happy Doggo. It does not tell us whether President Bukele’s administration continued developing its broader proposal independently or with different partners.
Almost a year later while researching for the Global Stray Dog Crisis Map , Dog Desk Animal Action has been unable to locate a published agreement, operating plan, budget, timetable or national set of results arising from the meeting. There is no publicly identified programme leadership, no announced sterilisation or vaccination target and no reporting showing how many street dogs have been reached. When Dog Desk Animal Action contacted Happy Doggo directly, we were told that there is no partnership.
That does not mean nothing was discussed or that no useful ideas were exchanged. It means the proposed collaboration does not appear to have progressed into the nationwide programme that the original announcements led people to expect. Neither Bukele nor Harbison appear to have publicly explained that outcome to the same audience that was told the programme was being created.
A country still relying on fragmented provision
The absence of a visible national programme is especially significant because El Salvador’s animal-welfare structure had already undergone major disruption.
In March 2025, Bukele ordered the closure of the Instituto de Bienestar Animal, the state body responsible for implementing national animal-welfare policy, and Polipet, the specialist police unit that supported animal-cruelty enforcement. The decision followed the discovery of serious conditions at a municipally operated shelter in Ilopango. Chivo Pets, the public veterinary hospital, was also initially closed, but that decision was reversed following a strong public response. La Prensa Gráfica
Chivo Pets remains a substantial and heavily used public service. Its director reported that it had delivered approximately 500,000 treatments between January and May 2026 and was handling hundreds of emergencies each day. Those figures demonstrate the hospital’s importance to Salvadoran families and their animals. Diario El Salvador
But a public veterinary hospital is not the same as a national street-dog programme. Treating animals brought through the hospital’s doors does not, by itself, provide coordinated street-dog enumeration, sustained community sterilisation, rabies vaccination, rescue capacity, cruelty enforcement or transparent monitoring of what happens to dogs across the country.
Some municipalities are carrying out useful work. La Libertad Sur’s municipal centre reported 96 rescues, 150 adoptions and 170 sterilisation procedures during its first year. San Salvador has also operated municipal adoption activities and offered discounted sterilisation, vaccination and parasite treatment for animals adopted through its shelters. Diario El Salvador
Alongside these services, Salvadoran rescue groups continue to take in abandoned animals, arrange veterinary care, organise sterilisation and search for adopters. Their work should be recognised, but it remains a patchwork of municipal provision and independent rescue rather than evidence that the announced national programme is operating.
A reasonable request for clarity
This is not a criticism of Harbison for failing to solve El Salvador’s entire street-dog population. No individual rescuer or organisation could reasonably carry that responsibility.
The question is narrower and fairer. A national programme was publicly announced. Harbison’s own words encouraged the belief that a government-backed test case was moving forward. Happy Doggo has now confirmed that there is no partnership, yet no public explanation of the outcome appears to have followed.
Projects sometimes do not progress beyond an initial meeting. There is no shame in saying so. A short public update would distinguish an ambitious discussion that did not proceed from a functioning programme and would ensure that El Salvador’s street animals are not assumed to be receiving help that has never materialised.
A short public update would do more than distinguish an ambitious discussion that did not proceed from a functioning national programme. When people believe that a prominent international organisation and a national government are already addressing the problem, they may reasonably assume that street dogs are being counted, sterilised, vaccinated, rescued and protected.
That belief can reduce public scrutiny, weaken pressure for government action and make it harder for local organisations to explain why they still urgently need funding, volunteers and veterinary support.
It can also give the impression that a coordinated solution exists when, in reality, small Salvadoran groups and individual rescuers may still be carrying much of the daily burden. Meanwhile, dogs can continue to breed, become sick, suffer injuries or disappear from communities without their circumstances receiving the attention they deserve.
Clarifying that the proposed collaboration did not progress would not diminish the value of the original discussion. It would allow people to understand the current position, support the organisations that are actually working on the ground and continue pressing for the transparent, humane national programme that El Salvador’s street animals were led to expect.
Dog Desk Animal Action will continue pressing President Bukele and his administration to explain whether the government continued developing a national programme with other experts, whether another organisation was appointed, what funding or infrastructure was committed and whether any work has begun under a different name.
We will also seek clarity about which authority now holds national responsibility following the closure of the Instituto de Bienestar Animal and Polipet. Until the government provides that information, we cannot conclude that Bukele’s proposal was abandoned but neither can it be presented as a functioning national programme.