A Hard Death

With the arrival of the 2000s, the abolition of the census conducted in homes during curfews, the transformation of the State Institute of Statistics and the State Planning Organization, and the removal of indelible ink in elections, we began to experience problems and a lack of trust in every area regarding counting and data collection. We also lack realistic data on the number of stray dogs that have occupied the agenda in recent weeks. Numbers ranging from 4 to 20 million are mentioned regarding the stray dog population, but especially for the last 15 years, no one knows how many of what we have in our country, how many entered, left, or reproduced; no one has counted. 

It is a fact that we live with far more stray dogs in our country compared to the world average, and we are certainly very late in intervening. Data tells us that the population can only be brought under control if 70% of the dog population in a fixed area is neutered within one year; otherwise, it will continue to increase. In this case, a sudden and mass operation is required to stop the increase through neutering. The word euthanasia was removed from the draft law at the last stage, but the relevant law written in its place still contains the practice of euthanasia. Regardless of how it is phrased, it is unacceptable for killing animals to be an option, except in cases of illness or imminent and serious danger.

The method of action opened up by the bill, which may lead to the culling of perhaps millions of stray dogs, has no humanly acceptable aspect. Furthermore, it has been seen in practices carried out in the West that suddenly removing dogs from the ecosystem—that is, collecting them from their environment—causes more harm than good because it leads to an increase in the reproduction of animals such as rodents and snakes in cities, and wolves, pigs, and jackals in rural areas. Therefore, dogs born in cities that do not show aggression should only be neutered at this stage and returned to where they were found. Since they are a territorial species, changing their location can in itself increase their aggression. It should also be noted that in the West, stray dogs are put to sleep if no one adopts them within a certain period, and that Westerners approach the issue with a focus on cost and public health. However, our situation is very different. We are in an extraordinary process, and we cannot manage this process with the ordinary practices that Westerners use in their established systems. We have a high-population problem waiting for a solution. After the bill becomes law, shameful news and images may await us due to the inhumane practices of incompetent public officials. 

In summary, the bill does not provide a solution regarding stray dogs; it brings brand new problems for both stray dogs and municipalities. It is impossible to find a solution to the problem without stopping animal imports and breeding, and without stabilizing the population by performing mass neutering. In this process we will enter once the regulation becomes law, we will need many more shelters and veterinary activities. We are talking about a job with a heavy financial and administrative burden. The law places all actions and expenses regarding stray dogs on the municipalities. It is very difficult for municipalities to solve this workload within their own budgets and authorities. The prison sentence for mayors and administrators who do not implement the law is like the cherry on top. Likewise, the Ministry of Treasury and Finance will now deduct the tax and social security debts of municipalities from the Local Administration Share distributed to provinces before sending it. This means doing more work with less money for the municipalities. 

In this context, it is clear that the process carried out regarding stray dogs is primarily structured to remove the expectations of retirees and minimum wage earners for a July supplementary raise from the agenda, and subsequently to throw this social problem onto local governments to make them appear unsuccessful in the eyes of the voters. Therefore, the bill in question resembles a devious trap set for local governments that are prevented from building nurseries within the scope of austerity measures. 

The solution is clear: Combine all the right steps. Create a fund to provide financing, distribute the duties and authorities of central and local administrations, carry out a one-time neutering mobilization, make animal breeding subject to permits, prevent unregistered and uncontrolled breeding, ban the import of animals from abroad, prevent the sale of live animals online, and extract data on owned/stray animals. The issue is that the authority to solve the problem lies with those who created it, and those who have wanted to solve the problems for a quarter of a century have been unable to secure a sufficient majority.