The Illusion of Eradication, Why Mass Euthanasia of Stray Dogs in Turkey Is a Futile Solution

A municipal shelter worker I spoke with recently, exhausted, crying, and furious put it bluntly: “If we can’t care for them properly, maybe we should just put them down. It would stop the suffering.”

That sentence, spoken from despair, captures why the debate has grown so raw. It’s easy to understand the impulse behind such a suggestion: overcrowded facilities, underfunded staff, animals in pain. But the quick answer born of heartbreak isn’t always the right one. We need to ask not only what would ease immediate suffering, but what would produce lasting, humane results.

Introduction

In July 2024, the Turkish Parliament approved sweeping legislation aimed at removing stray dogs from the streets, an act widely criticized by animal-welfare organisations as essentially paving the way for mass euthanasia. At the time we were happy to believe that the dogs would be cared for in the proper manner, sadly that has not happened.

While the stated objectives include public safety, bite prevention and rabies control, the move prompts a deeper question: even if carried out, would mass euthanasia actually solve the underlying problem of stray dogs? I argue: no it’s both ethically and practically flawed, and distracts from sustainable, humane alternatives.

A brief historical & legal context

• Under the previous animal-protection law (Law No. 5199) from 2004, municipalities were required to capture, neuter/vaccinate, and release stray dogs back into their original area rather than kill them.

• The new law mandates the removal of stray dogs, housing them in shelters, and importantly allows euthanasia for dogs deemed sick or dangerous.

• Estimates put Turkey’s stray dog population in the millions (approx 4 million), while shelter capacity remains a tiny fraction of that total.

• There is also a strong cultural tradition in Turkey of co-existing with street animals, especially dogs and cats.

Why mass euthanasia is ultimately futile

Below are several inter-linked arguments explaining why a blanket “kill off the strays” approach is misguided:

1. Supply persists so long as root causes remain unchecked
Stray dog populations are driven by abandonment, uncontrolled breeding, insufficient sterilisation, and gaps in owner accountability. Killing large numbers may reduce visible numbers briefly, but without addressing inflow, the population rebounds.

2. Infrastructure and resources don’t match the ambition
If millions of dogs are targeted but sheltering, medical care and adoption infrastructure remain grossly underfunded, the result will be warehousing, neglect, or mass killing, none of which are humane or sustainable.

3. Ethical, cultural and social back-lash risks
In many Turkish neighbourhoods dogs are fed and cared for by residents; they are part of urban life. Mass euthanasia risks provoking public outrage, fracturing trust in institutions, and inflaming social tensions.

4. It does not directly improve public safety in a long-term, planned way
Aggression and public-safety issues are often linked to neglect, disease, or socialisation not simply to being stray. Targeted health, education and vaccination campaigns address risk more effectively than broad culling.

5. It risks diverting attention and funding from more effective solutions
A euthanasia-focused policy can suck political will and budgets away from sterilisation, vaccination, owner-responsibility measures and community programmes that reduce stray populations over time.

Alternative approaches: more humane, sustainable and effective

If we reject mass euthanasia as the main tool, what else can Turkey do?

• Capture-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return (CNVR): Sterilise and vaccinate strays, then return them so they no longer reproduce and pose less public-health risk.

• Improve owner-responsibility laws: Registration, micro-chipping, penalties for abandonment and regulation of breeding and sales.

• Community engagement: Work with neighbourhood caregivers rather than treating them as part of the problem.

• Education + public health: Combine animal-welfare efforts with rabies control, bite-prevention education, and humane treatment messaging.

Why Turkey’s current law risks missing the mark

• It mandates capture and potential euthanasia before meaningful infrastructure is in place.

• It shifts the policy paradigm from manage and coexist to remove the problem, risking shortcuts by local authorities.

• It may incentivise easier, cheaper killing over investment in long-term solutions.

• It overlooks the socio-cultural reality that street animals are embedded in many communities.

• Data, monitoring and transparency: Accurate population counts and monitoring enable policies that can be measured and adjusted.

• Adequate sheltering & adoption infrastructure: Invest in humane shelters and adoption networks but paired with measures that reduce new inflows.

What the futility really means

• High cost for uncertain outcome: Large expenditures with no guaranteed long-term reduction.

• Short-lived gains, long-term waste: Populations can rebound if root causes persist.

• Lost opportunity: Political will diverted from humane, effective programmes.

• Ethical/credibility risk: Poor implementation can lead to abuses and public outcry.

• Ignoring human-animal ecology: Coexistence solutions honour both animal welfare and community norms.

Conclusion

The impulse to solve an overwhelming, heart breaking crisis by eliminating the visible symptom is understandable when shelters are failing and staff are exhausted. But mass euthanasia as a first-line strategy for stray dogs is ethically troubling and practically ineffective.

A humane, effective approach requires investment in sterilisation, vaccination, owner-responsibility, community engagement and monitoring. These are not quick fixes; they require sustained political will and funding but they offer a path to genuinely reducing numbers while respecting animal lives and community values. In short: don’t let despair dictate policy. Channel that urgency into building systems that make euthanasia unnecessary.