October 4, World Animal Day, is celebrated in the midst of a serious situation in terms of animal rights in Turkey. While the collection of stray animals, conditions in shelters, violence against animals and problems in data sharing by public institutions continue to be discussed, according to the 2025 Media Violation Report of the Animal Rights Monitoring Committee (HAKİM), the right to life of at least 3 million 939 thousand animals was violated only in cases reported in the media. According to Fatma Biltekin from HAKİM, the issue is not limited only to the extent of the violations, it is also necessary to question what kind of justice mechanism is operated against these violations.
- I think we are going through very painful times for animals and their animal friends.
Every day we see a new collection, a new image of violence, and after a while these become part of daily life. As social violence increases, the most vulnerable groups suffer more harm, and animals are one of them. The fact that the state has come to a point where it legitimizes violence against animals instead of preventing it has made the process worse. Our 2025 Media Violation Report also shows the extent of the situation. By scanning only the cases reported in the media, we found that the right to life of at least 3 million 939 thousand animals was violated. This figure does not show the total violation, but rather the lower limit of the picture reflected to the public, because most of the violations are not reflected in the media. According to the 2025 data of the Ministry of Justice, 4 thousand 744 files were processed within the scope of Law No. 5199, and 2 thousand 878 of them were decided. It was decided that there was no need for prosecution in 62 percent of the resolved cases. In other words, the main problem is not only the lack of applications, but also the fact that a significant portion of the applications are not brought to the judicial process.
- LET'S Police application, which seems like a promising development, was removed a while ago. So, how does the implementation of the law on animal rights work? What function does the law, which was much discussed at the time of its introduction, have in the field today?
Even though we have this practice, we have seen that it does not always work in favor of the animals. For example, we know of many cases where the police were unable to enter the house and protect the animal in the event of violence. On the other hand, the process of taking dogs defined as "dangerous" animals by law and imprisoning them in shelters went much faster. The new regulation paved the way for the collection of all dogs. However, for the past 20 years, municipalities were required to neuter the animals and return them to the place where they received them. However, we have seen that this is not implemented, municipalities leave animals to the borders of other municipalities and forests to escape their responsibilities, and animals die due to lack of care in shelters. Striking data also emerged in the municipal shelters report we published at the beginning of 2025. 26 of the municipalities that responded to our requests for information admitted that their shelters were unlicensed. He stated that 320 municipalities without shelters collected stray animals. There were 171 municipalities that stated that local units such as police or cleaning workers carried out the collection. He said that nine municipalities receive services from private companies, and 12 municipalities carry out collections with municipal staff under the supervision of veterinarians. In other words, there is a huge collection operation, but there is a serious transparency problem regarding how it is carried out.
'REQUIRED BUDGET IS NOT ALLOCATED'
- The images about the shelter in Ordu, which came to the fore at the beginning of 2026, brought the issue of control in the shelters into discussion again.
The images in Ordu should not be evaluated as a singular event. We have been seeing similar images in many parts of Turkey for years. Municipalities often see animals as a burden that needs to be gotten rid of, rather than as creatures that need to be protected. Therefore, the budgets that should be allocated for these animals are not allocated. One of the reasons why methods such as drugging animals and strangling them in bags in Gebze and killing them with a shovel in Konya are preferred is that these are the cheapest methods. These methods are not new, but we see that they can be applied much more easily after the law change in 2024. The budget side is also important. According to the administrative activity reports of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, only 1.83 percent of the budget allocated for animals was used in the first six months of 2025. Of the 1 billion 800 million lira budget allocated at the end of the year, 1 billion was reduced due to savings measures and 60 million due to institution transfers. In the 2021 law change, we fought to impose sanctions on municipalities that do not fulfill their responsibilities, but no regulation was made in this direction. In 2024, the opposite was done, an article was added that provides for a prison sentence of six months to two years for mayors and their employees who do not collect or kill animals. In my opinion, this was a regulation that clearly antagonized animals and was part of a political plan.
THE PROCESS IS NOT TRANSPARENT
- How transparent is the process after animals are taken to shelters?
There are serious inconsistencies among the data we have and we have asked why this many times but have not received an answer. According to the response of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, İbrahim Yumaklı, on June 18, 2026, there were 322 nurseries with a capacity of 105 thousand animals on August 2, 2024, and as of June 18, 2026, 572 nurseries and natural habitats with a capacity of approximately 531 thousand animals are operating. On the other hand, when the law was passed, it was said that there were approximately 4 million animals, and 99.22 percent of the dogs were collected by the Minister of Internal Affairs. So if millions of animals were collected, where did they go? Where is the difference between current capacity and this number? We did not receive a satisfactory answer to this. In the shelter report we published at the beginning of 2025, we applied to 1408 municipalities for information. While 1111 of them responded, 297 did not respond at all. 58 municipalities refused to provide information. Therefore, we are talking not only about the lack of data, but also about the lack of sharing of existing data with the public. Municipalities' avoidance of sharing information they already have to keep, such as the number of animals, capacity and number of employees, creates a serious transparency problem.
- Why do we still have difficulty obtaining regular and comparable data in the field of animal rights?
This problem is not unique to the field of animal rights. There are serious problems with data sharing by public institutions in many areas in Turkey. When it comes to animals, the responsible people do not answer questions, and even if the data is kept, it is not shared with the public. In the GNAT Animal Rights Report we prepared in 2025, we examined three legislative proposals, four parliamentary research proposals and 167 written questions. Only 66 of the 167 written questions were answered, and 101 were left unanswered. This isn't just a lack of data, it's a direct control issue. When data is not kept or shared, we cannot track not only what is happening today, but also what has changed over the years and what policies are working. For example, after bringing up the data regarding unused budgets in the activity reports of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, we saw that these data were not shared under a separate heading in subsequent reports. Therefore, the problem is not just the lack of data, but how the data is presented to the public and how accountability is enforced.
ORGANIZED ATTACKS ON CATS
- The animal rights debate has been largely focused on stray dogs in recent years. However, recently we have seen posts targeting cats as well. Do you think these posts are isolated or an organized movement?
I think these are an organized movement. The process started like this in dogs. First, fear and anger were generated over certain events, and then animals began to be portrayed as a social threat. Now we see signs of a similar process with cats. Especially recently, we see that rabies news has come to the fore again, and many unproven news are being circulated. That's why I don't see these as just isolated social media posts. Rather than individual contents, it is necessary to look at what kind of narrative they create. I think that the process we experience in dogs is being tried to be reproduced in cats as well.
GAINS ARE LOST
- Why do the rights of other animals, from animals exploited in farms and experiments to wild animals, lag behind the public debate?
Because people first encounter cats and dogs on the street. We have a common culture of life with these animals dating back centuries; They are seen as part of the family and the street. We do not see animals exploited on farms or used in experiments. Slaughterhouses and experimental centers are invisible spaces outside of daily life. In fact, five years ago we were talking more about these issues; A broader discussion was taking place, from farm and experimental animals to wild animals, from zoos to different forms of exploitation. However, at this point, the government's policy has largely confined us to the cat and dog issue. This is a serious step backwards for the fight for animal rights. Not only are we unable to achieve new gains, we are also losing what we have achieved in the past.
FROM 'STREET' TO 'STRAFFY'
- Do you think that the social language in animal rights advocacy has changed in recent years? What is the difference between “animal love” and “animal rights”?
We see that dogs and cats, which used to be called "stray animals", are today defined as "stray" and are increasingly turned into monsters. “Animal love” refers to the human feeling towards animals. If a person loves an animal, he treats it well; if he does not, he stays away. “Animal rights” say that the life and physical integrity of animals should be protected, regardless of human emotions. Just because a person loves a dog is not the reason for the dog's right to life. Likewise, just because a person does not like cats, he does not have the right to harm them. The issue is not limited to treating animals well; To discuss a system in which animals are not considered human property, entertainment, food, human subject matter, or resources. In other words, animals are seen as entitled individuals without needing the love of humans.
HATE IS BEING TAUGHT
- Why or how do you think a person can hate an animal? Have you ever thought about the psychology of this situation?
I think "why would a person hate animals?" Before asking the question, it is necessary to look at how hating animals is taught and socialized. Acceptances in family, environment, media, culture and society affect how people view animals. If a child is constantly told that an animal is dangerous, dirty, harmful or worthless, it is not surprising that he or she will develop fear or hatred towards it. When we see animals as beings that are completely different from us, inferior and worthless, it becomes easier to normalize violence. We have seen this especially with dogs in recent years. As expressions such as "stray", "dangerous", "aggressive" were repeated, the animal began to be seen as a threat rather than a sentient creature. But fear and hatred are not the same thing. A person may fear or dislike an animal. This has nothing to do with any animal's right to life. Disliking an animal does not give you the right to harm it. The struggle for animal rights also needs to make this distinction visible. The issue needs to be less about how people feel about animals and more about what animals experience and why their lives should be protected.
