Stray dog problem in Türkiye: We don't have to choose sides | Daily Sabah – Daily Sabah

Dogs roaming freely on streets in Türkiye have never been heavier on the public agenda than recently, as the country has witnessed many unfortunate incidents. The most recent example is the death of a 10-year-old boy – who passed away after being hospitalized for rabies weeks after being bitten by dogs. The boy, identified as M.E., was one of two boys bitten by dogs in a village in the Bitlis province while the other boy was not diagnosed with rabies and was discharged from hospital last week.
Another terrible incident took place in a shelter in the central Turkish province of Konya on Nov. 25. This time dogs were barbarously killed with a shovel. The video of the incident – which made rounds on social media – aroused the public.
The incidents went beyond rekindling the debates that have been going on for years, leading to unprecedented polarization in the country. There are basically two sides to the issue:

On one side, there are those advocating for the mass killing of stray dogs on grounds that such a method would prove more “humane” rather than letting the animals, who live in unhealthy conditions and are much more prone to illnesses than their pet counterparts. Adherents of this idea say that animals living on the street have much shorter life expectancies (three to four years for stray dogs, which are normally expected to live at least up to 15 years), claiming that just putting them to eternal sleep without any pain would be more in line with modern ethics.
The majority of this group, which labels some animal rights organizations as the “food lobby” and accuses them of reaping profits from animal food, is also against the random feeding of stray animals on the street. They claim that animals are slowly poisoned and “killed” due to malnutrition with food that is not suitable for their metabolism or because of fleas and infectious diseases where they frequently live under sheds, decks and buildings.

Although, things are not so clear-cut on the other side of the coin.
People in this camp, who are overwhelmingly animal rights advocates (not to say that people on the opposite side are not animal welfare supporters, and in fact, many claim they are) cannot produce short-term solutions for this problem. Agreeing with the other side that stray animals live shorter than pets, the second group claims that the problem will be solved by itself in this way. Suggesting that mass sterilization is necessary to stop the stray dogs’ population from growing, they say that special species breeding, animal smuggling and abandonment of pets should be prevented by the government. They also argued that as more and more dogs are abandoned in forests, the strays come into contact with wildlife and increase the risk of transmitting rabies to people.
There are conflicting stances regarding the details of methods to employ in both camps but those two views are the most prominent ones. The solution to the problem of stray dogs is not going anywhere unless some concrete steps are taken. Nevertheless, discourse and debate seem to overshadow any effort to find a real solution to this issue.
As usual in today’s world, a fierce debate continues on social media. What I have realized trying to understand and analyze both camps’ arguments by reading their tweets and watching their videos is that the stray dog debate is just a reflection of an apparent sociological issue. Some people approach life as a football game in which there are winners and losers. Players get beaten or beat the opponent, hence creating a sense of pride for the particular team’s supporters.

To be honest, I have never witnessed so much hate and division in any sociological matter. I have been targeted by people on social media just for doing my job and writing an article on stray dogs. What I did was just interview people and draft a news article; but I was targeted just for daring to even write some stuff on the matter.
Watching debates unfold on social media has made me realize one thing about the whole stray dog debate: People are fighting for the sake of fighting. They are of course dedicated to their causes and get involved in fierce debates just to help enforce the method they deem appropriate, but the way they engage in debates surely looks like they are just out to beat someone in a fight and become the victor. It seems as if they don't care about the welfare of people or the dogs and they just want the credit for themselves.
But we do not have to choose a winner or declare one side guilty and the other one not guilty. We are not judges, or referees who decide if the ball has totally passed through the goal line. As normal people, we can just brainstorm in a communal way, and find a middle ground using scientific, sociological and ecological true methods to find a solution to this daring problem. Yes, we have a tough nut to crack at hand but what has humanity ever failed to do when it put its mind? We went to the moon for goodness’ sake; I am pretty sure we can find a good solution to avert any tragedies in the upcoming years.
The child killed because of being bit by rabid dogs does not legitimize the mass killing of ordinary stray dogs; vice versa the mass killing of stray dogs does not legitimize filling the streets with uncared animals that have not received proper health care and vaccination.
Recently, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan made some statements about stray dogs. “The place of stray animals is not the streets, but shelters. I gave the necessary instructions to the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. My ministers are working. We must not leave this matter unattended. Whatever steps to be taken regarding the issue, whatever measures are necessary will be fulfilled,“ he emphasized.
As the sides of the debate become radicalized, they resemble each other in parallel with the horseshoe theory, which asserts that the extreme left and the extreme right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, closely resemble each other. So both sides should stop fighting and think about how they can contribute to the solution of the problem.
The streets did not create stray dogs. This is a human-induced problem that closely concerns society, so all actors must do their part. A law protecting and emphasizing the sanctity of both human and animal lives should be enacted immediately. If necessary, large sterilization and adoption campaigns should be initiated involving all actors.
Here, the greatest of responsibilities and duties falls to the government because of its resources and influence. However, animal rights groups should also take responsibility. In collaboration with animal behavioral experts and veterinarians, public institutions including municipalities, animal rights and welfare advocates should embrace the problem.
As a journalist, my duty led to shedding light on issues we face as a society. Also, the entities upon which the duty to find solutions for such issues are the government, municipalities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
This is a call to all parties concerned: We do not have to choose sides when it comes to “life.” Since no matter which side wins, indeed there will be “no winners” in this battle.

source