A controversial new law in Turkey is intended to get stray dogs off the streets. Animal rights activists warn of diseases in overburdened animal shelters and a plan to kill animals en masse. The AKP government, however, is probably primarily concerned with cutting costs.
Amendments to the animal protection law have added another dimension to the already deep divisions in Turkish society: After the urban-periphery and secular-religious divides, now an ‘animal massacrer vs. dog worshipper’ rift has emerged. This is how both sides of the debate typically label each other. For advocates of the new law, it is non-negotiable to remove stray dogs from the streets.
The amendments to the ‘Law on the Protection of Animals’ which was originally adopted back in 2004, stipulate that all stray dogs should be removed from the streets and placed in animal shelters to put an end to numerous injuries and deaths that stray dogs had been causing for years. Animal rights activists and veterinary professional associations have protested against the planned amendments to the law since its proposal to parliament. Main opposition leader Özgür Özel (CHP) party argued that “the new law is unconstitutional and fails to protect the right to life,” as his party has recently called on the Supreme Court to suspend the adoption of the amendments to the law.
The reason why opponents believe that the new law could result in the mass killing of stray dogs stems from the much-debated sections on euthanasia in the law which is worded vaguely and thus open to potential abuse in order to get rid of stray dogs within a legal framework. According to these stipulations, to eradicate a contageous animal disease or in cases where negative behavior cannot be controlled, euthanasia may be applied. The stipulation is claimed to be vague since there is no clear criterion as to what constitutes negative behavior.
This ambiguity might result in the euthanization of a dog with rabies that could have otherwise been treated, or even applied to a dog that simply barks a lot. Additionally, opponents of the law do not believe that conditions in animal shelters will be up to the necessary standards, given the tremendous expenses required to run fully-equipped facilities. They argue that infectious diseases will likely wreak havoc in shelters designed to accommodate an estimated one to four million stray dogs in Turkey. Consequently, they fear that the euthanasia provision may be applied arbitrarily because diseases could spread in overcrowded spaces in no time.
The main reason why this new law was needed is said to be the fact that, over the years, the CNR method did not suffice
The new law brings about a paradigm shift in the approach to managing the stray dog population, has introduced several uncertainties, concerns, and most importantly, questions about what more needs to be done in the coming years to make the law more feasible. The main reason why this new law was inarguably needed is said to be the fact that, over the years, the CNR (Capture, Neuter, and Release) method did not suffice to fundamentally solve the stray dog issue. Considering that the CNR method, when applied in a dedicated manner, is indeed recognized as an effective solution by veterinarians and scientists, it is possible that many municipalities might have significantly mismanaged the widespread implementation of these measures.
What is more striking is how easily the boundaries between the public and private spheres are being redefined. The change to the Law on the Protection of Animals first stipulates that all stray dogs are be removed from the streets and placed in animal shelters. As AKP Group Leader Abdullah Güler stated, “This law is not about killing, but about incentivizing adoption”. Adoption is indeed being promoted over purchasing, and animal rights groups have been advocating for a ‘Adopt, don’t shop’ policy as it counteracts the commodification of animals.
However, the emphasis on adoption in this change to the law carries a different undertone. From now on, the well-being of stray dogs will be placed within the discretion of the private sphere. In other words, it is implied that the state is withdrawing from the responsibility of caring for stray dogs, leaving Turkish citizens to fill the void, as the envisioned state-sponsored animal shelters will likely struggle to provide proper care and maintenance.
The state plans to relieve itself from any financial burden that stray dogs may cause
This issue is related to the broader financial struggles, the Turkish state is trying tackle. As recently as May 13th, Minister of Treasury and Finance Mehmet Şimşek outlined new austerity measures that Turkey will implement over the next few years. They include the indefinite prohibition of purchasing, constructing, and renting new housing and social facilities, as well as limiting new public sector employment to only those replacing retirees.
Given such extensive public spending cuts, the argument made by proponents of the new law that municipalities should build new shelters and care for stray dogs until they are adopted seems contradictory. It is unrealistic to expect the state to allocate a significant portion of the budget not only to build numerous fully-equipped animal shelters to house millions of stray dogs, but also to uphold the necessary healthcare standards. The authors of this bill and those who voted in favor are likely well aware of this gap, which is why the government is so vehemently pushing for private individuals to adopt stray dogs.
The state plans to relieve itself from any financial burden that stray dogs may cause by incentivizing adoption. When someone adopts a stray dog, the entire adoption experience —alongside the joy of having a pet – also involves a costly and unpleasant process of addressing the dog’s past traumas as well as covering its healthcare and nutrition expenses. Although the law includes a stipulation regarding increased fines for people who abandon their adopted dog, a meaningful and substantial incentive from the state to prospective adopters is yet to materialize.
