The “Bill on the Amendment of the Animal Protection Law” (“Bill”), which has sparked long debates and objections in the public, was passed by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey on July 30, 2024. The Bill will become law and take effect upon approval by the President and publication in the Official Gazette.

1. Justification for the Amendment to the Animal Protection Law

The rationale for the Bill states that the existing Law No. 5199 on Animal Protection has been insufficient in ensuring the safety of stray animals and that uncontrolled stray animals have posed a threat to human health, public safety, and other animals in recent years. It emphasizes the need for new regulations due to the inadequacy of the current legislation.

2. Main Articles of the Bill

When evaluating the most notable changes in the Bill:

i. The most controversial change is undoubtedly related to the euthanasia of animals. The amendment changes Article 13 of Law No. 5199 on Animal Protection as follows:

“Euthanasia of Animals

For dogs taken to shelters, measures outlined in the third paragraph of Article 9 of Law No. 5996 on Veterinary Services, Plant Health, Food, and Feed dated June 11, 2010, shall apply to those posing a danger to human and animal life and health, exhibiting uncontrollable negative behaviors, suffering from contagious or untreatable diseases, or prohibited from being owned.

Local governments are authorized to take necessary administrative measures within the scope of the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, approved by the Council of Ministers Decision dated August 28, 2003, and numbered 2003/6168, in the conduct of their duties related to stray dogs.”

Upon reviewing the provision referred to by “measures outlined in the third paragraph of Article 9 of Law No. 5996,” it becomes clear that euthanasia can be performed based on the veterinarian’s assessment. Specifically:

“Euthanasia of animals is prohibited. However, a) In cases of diseases causing suffering and pain to animals or where recovery is not possible, b) For the prevention or eradication of an acute infectious animal disease or in situations posing a risk to human health, c) When behaviors pose a danger to human and animal life and health and uncontrollable negative behaviors are exhibited, a veterinarian may decide on euthanasia. Euthanasia must be carried out by a veterinarian or under their supervision.”

Accordingly, euthanasia may be decided for animals in situations posing a threat to human and animal health and where uncontrollable negative behaviors are exhibited, or for preventing an acute infectious animal disease.

ii. The definition of animal shelters has been changed. Previously, these were places where animals were rehabilitated before being released into their natural habitats, but the new regulation changes this to “places where animals are housed and rehabilitated until adopted.” This change raises serious concerns that it may exacerbate long-term housing problems for animals, strain the capacity of shelters, and negatively impact the natural behaviors and living conditions of animals by keeping them in shelters instead of their natural habitats. If the adoption process is slow, increased density in shelters could lead to insufficient resources, reduced quality of life, malnutrition, and increased spread of infectious diseases among the shelter animals.

iii. The principle of “Domestic animals have the freedom to live in conditions suitable for their species. The lives of stray animals should be supported like those of owned animals” has been entirely repealed from the Law. Without guaranteeing the freedom of domestic and stray animals to live in conditions suitable for their species, it is challenging to speak of protecting animals. The abandonment of this principle could lead to a decrease in public awareness and sensitivity about respecting animals’ living conditions.

iv. With the repeal of Article 18 titled “Responsibilities of Local Animal Protection Officers,” the practice of local animal protection officers, who play an important role in the protection and care of stray and debilitated animals, has also been abolished. The absence of volunteers will increase the burden on local governments. Without the help and support provided by volunteers, it will be difficult for local governments to provide adequate care and protection for stray animals. The absence of volunteers, who play an important role in increasing public participation and awareness, could reduce public interest and participation in animal protection efforts and weaken animal rights advocacy.

v. Paragraph (o) added to Article 14 as one of the prohibited acts states: “It is prohibited to abandon stray animals collected on behalf of local governments outside the shelter or to release dogs housed in the shelter outside the shelter.” This amendment indicates a departure from the Trap-Neuter-Return principle for dogs, as it prohibits releasing dogs back into their natural habitats, even if they have been rehabilitated and pose no risk to public and environmental health. However, under the same article, it is allowed to release cats back into their natural habitats if they are rehabilitated.

vi. In the current law, only the term “controlled animal” is defined. The Bill replaces the term “controlled animal” with “owned animal,” stipulating that for a pet to be considered an owned animal, it must be registered in the Ministry’s database.

The requirement for pets to be registered in the Ministry’s database for them to be considered owned animals will allow for more accurate and detailed tracking of the pet population, enabling reliable statistics on animal populations to be obtained. Additionally, the registration requirement will increase the traceability of animals, making it easier to find lost or abandoned animals and to determine the responsibilities of their owners.

3. Alternative Solutions for Balancing the Stray Animal Population

The widely held belief is that the Trap-Neuter-Return method is considered a more humane and sustainable way to control the population of stray animals. This method can help balance the population while protecting the right to life of animals. We believe that investing in spaying and neutering programs is more appropriate and effective than euthanasia. Raising public awareness about animal rights and expanding educational programs can contribute to solving the issue of stray animals.

4. Similar Practices Worldwide

Looking at global examples, the “Trap-Neuter-Hold-Euthanize” model is implemented in the UK, France, and some US states. In this model, animals not adopted within a specific period are euthanized. However, these practices have led to significant public debates and have been criticized by animal rights organizations, arguing that more humane and long-term solutions should be found instead of euthanizing animals.

In this method, stray animals, especially stray cats and dogs, are captured by local authorities. The captured animals are spayed or neutered to control reproduction. Spayed or neutered animals are held in shelters for a certain period. Animals not adopted within the specified period, usually ranging from a few weeks to a few months, are euthanized.

Animal rights advocates argue that this model violates animals’ right to life and is unethical, advocating that animals should be rehabilitated and released back into their natural habitats instead of being euthanized.

Due to this model, the rat population, which poses a significant problem in large cities, especially metropolitan areas, has become an issue, spreading various diseases and threatening public health.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the “Trap-Neuter-Hold-Euthanize” model implemented in some countries has caused significant issues and public reactions. This model is criticized for violating animals’ right to life and making local governments’ efforts to control animal populations controversial.

We have concerns that euthanasia, while providing short-term population control, may disrupt ecosystem balance, lead to environmental pollution, and most importantly, pose serious ethical issues. We believe that adopting more humane and sustainable solutions, such as the Trap-Neuter-Return method, would be more appropriate. This way, while protecting the right to life of our animals, we can also minimize the negative impacts on our ecosystem and values.

The amendments to the Animal Protection Law made by the Bill passed by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey continue to be debated by the public. If approved by the President, the law will come into effect after being published in the Official Gazette.

Best Regards,

DKND Law Firm

#animalrights