At the meeting of the Ankara Governorship Provincial Animal Protection Board dated November 6, 2025, uncontrolled feeding of stray dogs in public areas was banned. The decision envisaged the removal of uncontrolled feeding points and the imposition of administrative sanctions within the scope of Article 32 of the Misdemeanor Law on those who do not comply with the ban.
HAYTAP Animal Rights Federation applied to the General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks (DKMP) requesting the removal of the decision in question. DKMP rejected the application. HAYTAP Animal Rights Federation then filed a lawsuit requesting the annulment of the decision. In the case heard at Ankara 23rd Administrative Court, DKMP argued that the regulation was made to prevent stray dog attacks, to protect public health, to prevent unhygienic feeding activities and the attraction of creatures such as mice and pests to the environment. It was also stated that feed and food residues spilled on highways, ring roads and connection ramps may pose a traffic hazard.
"DIRECT BANNING IS NOT MEASUREMENT"
In the court decision, it was stated that, within the scope of the current legislation, homeless dogs are envisaged to be taken to care homes and kept there until they are adopted. However, it was pointed out that building sufficient nursing homes, improving the conditions of existing nursing homes, and carrying out collection activities required a certain amount of time to implement these regulations. In the decision, it was stated that feeding activities were completely banned with the 4th article of the Ankara Provincial Animal Protection Board, which is the subject of the case, and it was stated that the risks posed by 'uncontrolled and haphazard' feeding during the transition period could be eliminated by disciplining and controlling the feeding points and activities instead of a direct ban.
The court stated that the establishment of controlled feeding areas can ensure that animals are fed regularly and with healthy food, under hygienic conditions, under the supervision of authorized institutions. In the decision, it was noted that choosing the direct ban method instead of more limited measures such as regulating feeding activities in terms of place and time, determining feeding conditions and products, or binding them to hygiene conditions is not proportionate and proportionate.
"THE EXPRESSION 'UNCONTROLLED FEEDING' IN THE DECISION IS OPEN TO COMMENT"
The court also stated that the term 'uncontrolled feeding' in the decision does not have a clear definition in the legislation. It was evaluated that this situation may lead to different interpretations and uncertainties in practice. In the decision, it was stated that feeding stray animals is a part of public order and general health, and that the administration has the authority to make regulations in this area. However, it was emphasized that in the regulations to be made, both the right to life and safety of people and the protection of the environment, as well as the life and welfare of animals, should be taken into account.
"DIRECT PROHIBITION IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST"
Although limited measures such as regulating feeding activities in terms of time and place, determining feeding conditions and imposing hygiene conditions can be taken until the legislation on taking stray dogs into care homes is fully implemented, the court did not accept a direct ban as a lawful, rational, specific, proportionate and public interest administrative action.
