China occupies a unique position on Dog Desk Animal Action’s Global Crisis Map. It is not classified as a Crisis Zone, but neither does it currently meet the criteria for inclusion in the Stable category.
Instead, China remains on the Watchlist.
This reflects the fact that while China does not appear to be experiencing a nationwide street dog crisis, significant concerns remain about how free roaming dogs are managed in some parts of the country and how quickly local policies can shift in response to public health concerns.
The Global Crisis Map is not a measure of overall animal welfare standards and it is not based simply on the number of dogs living on the streets. Instead, it focuses on whether free-roaming dogs face significant risks from culling, euthanasia, mass collection campaigns, inadequate confinement or other policies that result in avoidable mortality.
When China is assessed against those criteria, the picture is mixed.
The country has undergone a remarkable transformation in its relationship with companion animals over the past two decades. Pet ownership has grown rapidly, veterinary services have expanded and animal welfare organisations have become increasingly active. In many cities, dogs are now viewed as valued family members and public support for animal welfare has increased significantly.
At the same time, China continues to have substantial populations of free roaming dogs in some regions, and approaches to managing those dogs can vary considerably from one locality to another.
This variation is one of the reasons China remains on the Watchlist.
Historically, some local authorities have responded to rabies outbreaks and public health concerns with dog confiscation campaigns and culling operations. These actions have not represented a consistent nationwide policy, but they demonstrate that free roaming dogs can become vulnerable when local governments prioritise rapid population reduction over long-term humane management strategies.
The concern is not that China is currently implementing a nationwide programme of mass euthanasia. There is no evidence to support that conclusion. Rather, the concern is that the welfare of free roaming dogs can depend heavily on local decisions, creating uncertainty about how animals may be treated during periods of heightened public concern.
This differs significantly from countries in the Crisis Zone, where evidence points to more systematic threats such as large scale collection programmes, widespread euthanasia policies or significant mortality associated with confinement systems. China does not currently meet that threshold.
However, it also differs from countries in the Stable category, where there is little evidence that free roaming dogs face ongoing risks from government led collection or culling measures.
One of the principles behind the Global Crisis Map is consistency. Countries are assessed according to the risks faced by free roaming dogs rather than broader perceptions about animal welfare. Applying that framework to China places it between stability and crisis. The country has made significant progress in some areas, but historical and ongoing concerns about localised confiscation and culling campaigns mean that caution remains warranted.
For now, China remains under observation.
Future developments could see the country move in either direction. Continued investment in humane population management, sterilisation, vaccination and responsible ownership programmes would strengthen the case for stability. Conversely, renewed reliance on large scale confiscation or culling campaigns would increase concerns about the welfare of free-roaming dogs.
At present, the evidence supports a Watchlist designation.