The stray dog problem in Ottoman Istanbul and the Sivriada massacre

Stray dogs have always been one of the prominent features of Ottoman Istanbul. The people of Istanbul held a special affection for cats and dogs, and feeding stray dogs in particular was one of the city's cultural customs. The fact that both Austrian Ambassador Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, who served in Istanbul in the 16th century, and the Italian writer Edmondo De Amicis, who visited Istanbul in the 19th century, wrote similar things in their memoirs and travelogues shows that this custom was a culture that persisted for centuries. Many Europeans who visited Istanbul did not neglect to mention the love the people of Istanbul had for dogs in their memoirs and travelogues, and for this reason, stray animals have stood out as one of the positive images of Ottoman Istanbul in Western literature up until the 20th century.

Just as it is today, stray animals in Ottoman Istanbul were fed in an uncontrolled manner. Unlike farm animals, the uncontrolled and irregular feeding of stray animals led to their population increasing in an uncontrolled way as well. Unlike cats, dogs are animals that can become aggressive toward humans. Furthermore, their tendency to organize and form packs, and the fact that pack-forming dogs are particularly prone to becoming aggressive, is a serious problem. In this regard, it was obvious that the uncontrolled increase in the number of dogs would lead to certain social problems and, considering that Istanbul was an important metropolis, occasionally international issues. When the dog population in Istanbul increased to an unmanageable size, the Ottomans often resorted to collecting the dogs and leaving them in remote places away from the city. These exiles, carried out by the order of the Sultan, mostly took place in the 19th century when the number of foreigners in the city increased.

These exiles always met with opposition from the local population. The public claimed that driving the dogs out of the city would bring bad luck and accepted disasters such as fires and earthquakes in Istanbul as God's response to the cruelty inflicted upon the stray animals.

The last and largest dog exile in the Ottoman Empire took place in 1910 and resulted in the death of all the exiled animals. By 1910, the dog population in Istanbul had shown an unprecedented increase and had passed the point of being manageable years before this date. By the 20th century, the excess in the number of dogs and the pack-forming dogs had become an element that damaged the modern face of Istanbul. The administration (Abdulhamid II and the Committee of Union and Progress after 1908) had been looking for a solution to the dog problem for a long time. Abdulhamid II, like the sultans before him, had decided to have the dogs collected and left at a point far from Istanbul, but this decision could not be implemented due to public opposition. The Unionists, who took over the administration, would approach this issue much more decisively.

The first decision made by the Unionists was to build a dog shelter in Topkapı. However, due to the endless number of dogs, the shelter built was not sufficient, and many cages made of low-quality materials were destroyed by the dogs. When it was understood that the shelter would be insufficient to solve the dog problem, the Istanbul Municipality decided to exile the animals to Sivriada, located in the Sea of Marmara.

Although the exact number of dogs taken to Sivriada is uncertain, according to official documents, the figure is between thirty thousand and eighty thousand. Two officials were appointed to this island, where no humans lived, to feed the dogs, and in addition, sensitive citizens also took food to the island by boat. However, the pollution created by dog feces soon made the island uninhabitable, and the officials responsible for feeding the dogs left the island after a while. The desperation created by hunger first led the animals to attack each other. Although some citizens continued to take water and food to the island after the officials left, the dogs, having become accustomed to eating each other, did not touch the bread left on the shore. After a while, the island became unapproachable due to the dog carcasses rotting in the sun, and as a result, not a single dog survived.

The massacre in 1910 took place as a result of complaints that had been accumulating for many years. In 1910, the population of Istanbul was less than 800,000. When looking at the number of dogs sent to Sivriada, it is seen that the number of dogs relative to the population had indeed reached a size that the Istanbul of that day could not handle. Although the out-of-control dog population had become a problem that needed an urgent solution, the issue was solved in the crudest way possible, and the tragedy that took place on Sivriada took its place in our history as a source of shame.

We are currently experiencing a process similar to the one leading up to 1910. As a result of years of complaints, the debates regarding the stray dog problem are currently at their peak, and it now seems certain that the administration will make a decision on this matter in a short time. I hope that in line with this decision, a new Sivriada will not be experienced and the issue will be solved in a humane way.