Uzbekistan is not currently a confirmed stray dog crisis zone on the scale of Türkiye. There is no verified evidence of a nationwide emergency removal policy, mass municipal shelter expansion, or official collection targets affecting the entire country.
But during 2025 and 2026, enough warning signs have begun emerging for the situation to attract increasing concern from animal welfare advocates and rescuers.
Recent reports have highlighted growing pressure on local dog management systems, particularly around collection activity and the lack of long-term infrastructure capable of absorbing captured animals safely. A February 2026 report discussing conditions in Yangiyul district described overcrowding concerns, shortages of proper facilities, and increasing strain on volunteers and rescuers already trying to manage the existing population. The same reporting suggested that new holding facilities were only now beginning to be planned following government reforms introduced at the end of 2025.
Alongside this, activists and rescue groups have continued raising concerns throughout 2025 and 2026 about the treatment of stray dogs after capture. Social media footage and local allegations have repeatedly described aggressive collection methods, overcrowded holding conditions, dogs disappearing after municipal operations, and poor transparency around what happens once animals are removed from public spaces. Some claims also include allegations of shootings and dead animals being discarded following capture operations.
Some of these reports come from activists rather than independently verified investigations, which means caution is necessary. Not every allegation can be confirmed. But the volume and consistency of the concerns are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore entirely.
At the same time, Uzbekistan is also showing signs of growing public awareness around animal welfare itself. In April 2026, regional reporting confirmed that lawmakers were preparing new animal protection legislation following public pressure and demands for stronger cruelty laws. That creates a complicated picture.
On one side, there are visible efforts to strengthen legal protections for animals. On the other, there are continuing reports of weak infrastructure, inconsistent enforcement, and growing concern about what happens to dogs once municipal collection systems become involved.
Many stray dog crises do not begin with openly declared policies of mass killing or removal. More often, they begin with mounting public pressure for authorities to solve the problem quickly, while humane infrastructure struggles to keep pace behind the scenes.
As collection systems expand, the central issue becomes transparency. Dogs disappear from public spaces, but questions remain about where they are being housed, how long facilities can cope, what oversight exists, and what happens when systems exceed capacity.
Uzbekistan has not yet reached the level of escalation now visible in countries like Türkiye. But several of the same early warning indicators are beginning to emerge at the same time, growing collection activity, infrastructure gaps, pressure on rescuers and volunteers, and increasing concern over what happens after dogs are removed from public view. That is why Uzbekistan has moved onto the watch list. Not because a full crisis has already been confirmed, but because the conditions that often appear before wider welfare deterioration are becoming harder to ignore.