Stray Dogs, Legal Blame, and the Absurdity of Suing Municipalities: A Tale of Two Countries

In Turkey, a growing number of people who experience aggression from stray dogs, no matter the circumstances, are turning to the courts—not to sue the dog owner, because there often isn’t one—but to sue the municipality. Why? Because the animal happened to be living on the streets.

On the surface, this legal trend may seem like a route to justice or public safety. But dig a little deeper, and it becomes clear: this approach is legally incoherent, ethically dangerous, and wildly inconsistent with standards in countries like the UK.

Turkish Law: Turning Stray Dogs Into Legal Liabilities

Under Turkish administrative law, if you are bitten by a stray dog, you can file a lawsuit against the local municipality for “failure of service” (hizmet kusuru). Courts have awarded victims compensation for both medical costs and emotional distress. In some cases, officials may even face criminal liability or prison time for not removing strays from the streets.

This is treated as a form of negligence—like failing to fix a broken pavement slab or leaving an uncovered manhole. But let’s be clear: a living being is not broken infrastructure.

The logic here essentially reduces stray dogs—many of whom are abandoned, born into neglect, and struggling to survive—to public safety hazards that must be eliminated to avoid litigation.

Meanwhile, in the UK: Wild Animals Are Part of Urban Life

Contrast this with how wildlife is treated in the United Kingdom.

People regularly complain about urban wildlife—foxes tearing into rubbish, seagulls dive-bombing pedestrians, pigeons fouling city centres—but no one sues the council over it.

Why?

Because in the UK:

• Wildlife is not owned or controlled by local government.

• Councils aren’t held liable for the independent actions of wild animals.

• The law recognises that nature coexists with people—and that it’s unrealistic and unethical to litigate against it.

If a seagull grabs a sandwich in Brighton, the victim doesn’t file a claim. The public may be annoyed, even angry—but they understand that wildlife isn’t grounds for legal blame.

Stray Dogs Should Not Be Municipal Property

Here lies the contradiction: Turkish stray dogs are being treated like owned property of the state, with municipalities held accountable as if they are the "keepers" of every animal roaming the streets.

But stray dogs aren’t municipal employees. They’re not council-owned vehicles. They're victims of systemic human failure: abandonment, lack of sterilisation, and societal neglect.

To sue a municipality because a stray dog chases you is like suing your town hall because a hedgehog startled you at night. It ignores the basic fact that these animals are living independently—not because they want to, but because we as a society failed to give them homes.

The Consequences of Suing the Wrong Target

When courts reward litigation against municipalities for stray dog bites, here's what really happens:

• Resources are drained away from sterilisation programs and adoption efforts, and into legal fees and pay outs.

• Public discourse shifts from compassion to fear. Dogs are no longer neighbours—they’re “threats.”

• Authorities react with cruelty, opting for mass roundups or even culling to avoid future liability.

• Animals suffer. Not because they are dangerous, but because they are politically inconvenient.

This legal strategy doesn’t make cities safer—it makes them more hostile, both to animals and the humans who care about them.

This legal pathway opens the door to abuse.

Opportunistic claims could be made in bad faith—exaggerating incidents or fabricating injuries—knowing that municipalities are under pressure to settle quickly to avoid bad publicity. This not only wastes resources, it discredits real victims and encourages a culture of blaming animals for human failures. It's a system ripe for exploitation, not justice.

A Better Way: Shared Responsibility Over Fear-Based Policy

If we truly want to reduce dog bites and improve public safety, the solution isn’t litigation—it’s prevention. That means:

• Nationwide sterilisation of stray and owned dogs

• Education on how to live alongside street animals

• Penalties for abandonment—not for survival

• Shelters that rehabilitate, not hide or euthanise

In the UK, the law accepts that wildlife is part of city life. It doesn’t scapegoat foxes or pigeons, and it doesn’t demand that local councils cleanse the streets of nature to avoid lawsuits.

Turkey should apply the same common sense to stray dogs—especially when they are not wildlife by nature, but domesticated animals failed by humans.

Let’s Stop Suing Our Way Into Cruelty

• Should we drain public funds meant to help animals in order to punish those trying to manage them?

• Should we treat dogs like legal hazards rather than sentient beings?

• Should we solve complex, deeply human problems with lawsuits and fear?

In the UK, these questions have already been answered. You can’t sue a council for a pigeon poop—and no one would take you seriously if you tried.

It’s time Turkey stopped pretending that compassion is a liability, and started treating stray animals not as threats to be erased, but as lives to be protected.