Gul 2014 clara roberts paper

The City’s Silent Residents: Cat and Dog Presence and Welfare in London and Istanbul Clara Roberts

[April 2014]

Cat, possibly stray or owned, on a car in West London

Free roaming dog sleeping outside a mosque in Istanbul

Created for Global Urban Lab Rice University: School of Social Sciences & Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Executive Summary Animals are an essential, ever-present part of the urban landscape, yet they are overlooked in the study of urban life. Domestic animals are an integral part of human culture and history and, therefore, an important element of urban policy. In addition to culture and animal welfare, controlling stray and feral cats and dogs is a challenge that encompasses issues of public health and environmental concerns. London and Istanbul have disparate histories regarding animal control, with London’s system being long-established and Istanbul’s system only a decade old. This, combined with differences in pet cultures, has resulted in disparate policies and visibly different landscapes of domestic animals in public spaces. London’s system is primarily run by donation-funded shelters, with the government serving a supporting role, whereas Istanbul’s is entirely government-funded, with the charities providing on-the-ground support.

London confines most of its strays in shelters while Istanbul utilizes a Trap-Neuter-Return policy, so their strays are primarily free-roaming. The cities’ policies are both largely shaped by national legislation, but also influenced by choices in implementation. While the scale of the issue may be much larger in Istanbul, both cities face some similar challenges, including lack of public knowledge about neutering, regulating breeding, and encouraging sustainability as stray populations continue to grow.

1|Page

Table of Contents Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2 Report ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Issue Statement…………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Research……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………4 Terminology…………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….4 Findings…………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………..5 Historical Context…………………………………………………………….……………………….……………………5 Current Policy and Practice……………………………………………………………….……………………………6 Primary Perspectives…………………………………………………………….……………..………………………..8 Visibility in Urban Spaces………………………………………………………………..……………………………..9 International Outreach…………………………………………………………….…………..………………………11 Recommendations………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………12

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 13 Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... 14

2|Page

Report Introduction What makes a city? Elements like people, economy, transportation, skyscrapers, and historical structures are typically considered most important, usually followed by cultural staples and sometimes even natural environment, in the form of contained green spaces or polluted air.

The metropolis’ non-human residents are rarely included in the conversation. One glaring exception is the recent controversy about Sochi’s handling of free-roaming dogs in the face of the winter Olympics, which was a rare glimpse into the ongoing struggle to control and support urban animal populations (Dell'Amore). As one scholar explains, “human–animal interaction was [historically] both an essential part of London’s system of labor and trade, and part of the emotional experience of city dwellers,” a statement which can almost certainly be applied to other metropolises (Kean 55). Animals have been important in the livelihood of cities, as well as the quality of life of their citizens, for centuries. It is therefore essential for cities to address their presence, both for the sake of the animals themselves and to improve environmental sustainability and public health.

Cities are primarily built environments, but they do not exist entirely apart from nature.

In fact, animals, particularly domestic ones, are often deliberately incorporated into the built environment, in areas like zoos and dog parks. Others, like subway rats and stray domestic animals, are less welcome inhabitants, who still interface with the landscape and human population and must be addressed by the city, whether directly by the government, by charity organizations, or a combination of the two. How do London and Istanbul handle the challenges of controlling dogs and cats in public spaces and how, if at all, are their methods shaped by different histories and pet cultures?

Issue Statement The control of unplanned domestic animals, primarily cats and dogs, in public spaces is arguably the most glaring aspect of animal existence in urban areas. London and Istanbul serve as examples of two cities with starkly different histories of animal control and, therefore, have divergent policies and current situations. The United Kingdom, for example, was the first country in the world to implement laws protecting animals, whereas Turkey’s legislation is much more recent (BBC). Turkey’s more modern legislation is also structured differently than the United Kingdom’s and includes provisions that the UK does not, including outlawing the euthanization of healthy, non-dangerous animals (HAYTAP). It is difficult to obtain accurate numbers for stray and feral animal populations, but Turkey, because of its relatively shorter history of government and charity animal control efforts, along with other factors, faces greater obstacles than London. Estimates of Istanbul’s free roaming dog population range from 40,000 to 150,000. Pet ownership in Turkey, however, is much lower than in the United Kingdom. A World Society for the Protection of Animals report in 2007 estimated UK dog ownership at 6,734,000 and Turkey dog ownership at 1,405,000. Cat ownership was 9,887,000 and 2,877,000, respectably (Batson). Even the WSPA, however, admits in their report that obtaining reliable data as the situation now stands is nearly impossible. Lack of information is one of many challenges that stakeholders are confronting in their efforts to address animal welfare in urban settings. London and Istanbul utilize different strategies to cope with animal welfare and control, which are largely but not entirely shaped by national policies. These actions both produce and are a product of the forms of visibility and culture surrounding dogs and cats in public spaces.

3|Page

Research Methodology In both countries, the cities of interest are at the core of the issue. In the United Kingdom, London is the center of policy making. While Istanbul is not the capital of Turkey, it is at the forefront of implementing animal welfare policy. Additionally, the urban landscape provides a unique situation for dealing with domestic animals because of the density of people and the pace of activity. This report will, therefore, use the two cities as a lens through which to view the development of animal welfare and the visibility of domestic animals in the two nations.

Statistics are included when possible, but in most cases reliable data is not available. While quantitative data is useful for understanding the scope of the issue, this report focuses primarily on historical, cultural, and legislative practices.

A literature review provided context and historical perspective about domestic animal welfare in London and Istanbul. As scholar Hilda Kean, one of the few researchers of domestic animal presence in cities, points out, “Although non-human animals have long been recognized as inhabitants of the metropolis, there have been few academic studies of their historical existence” (Kean 54). Until recently, the issue has been researched almost exclusively by animal welfare organizations, which work to produce estimations of cat and dog populations and provide best practices recommendations. The literature review draws on these reports, relevant news articles, the legislation itself, and scientific papers about animal welfare practices more broadly.

One key inductive interview was conducted in each city. In Istanbul, where welfare is primarily a government responsibility, the interview was with a civil servant. In London, where charities take on primary responsibility, it was difficult to gain access to one of the most prominent organizations but the opportunity arose to interview an animal welfare officer at a smaller shelter. Finally, the author’s observations of animals in public spaces are employed to explore their roles in the metropolis. Wherever possible, photographs taken by the author or others in the program are included. However, when access was restricted, photographs found online are used. The available material, both in the literature and in interviews, mainly centers on dogs rather than cats, possibly because they are seen as a bigger nuisance and their control is given higher priority. Themes from work with both cats and dogs, however, apply to the issue more broadly.

Terminology Feral animals were once domesticated but have since reverted to the wild. While feral cat populations are an issue in urban areas, dogs typically rely on humans for food and rarely hunt wildlife. Therefore, they are almost never feral (Dell'Amore). The terms ‘free-roaming’ and ‘stray’ are used interchangeably to refer to animals on the street. Some of these animals may be community owned and cared for, but it is impossible to tell as an outsider as long as they remain uncontained. Animal ownership is a relatively fluid concept, but for the purposes of this document, an owned animal is one that is visibly claimed (International Companion Animal Management Coalition 3).

4|Page

Findings Historical Context The history of cat and dog presence in the two cities is largely anecdotal. Domestic pets have, however, been leaving their marks on London for over 200 years. Hyde Park contains the oldest known pet cemetery in the Western world, founded in 1881 (Kean 57).

It is filled with tiny tombstones and memorials indicating that Londoners have long been emotionally attached pet owners. It is therefore unsurprising that the United Kingdom was the first country to implement animal protection laws, passing the 1822 Act to Figure 1: Hyde Park pet cemetery Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle, followed by the more general Protection of Animals Act in 1911. In 2007, Parliament passed the Animal Welfare Act, which overhauled and updated previous legislation. It implemented harsher penalties for neglect and abuse and raised the minimum age for adopting a pet (BBC). The two most prominent animal charity organizations still active in London today were both founded in the 1800s, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1824 and Battersea Cats and Dogs home in 1860 (BBC). These organizations, along with many others, work to manage feral animal populations, prevent cruelty, and rehome stray pets. Because of a long history of pet ownership and stray animal management by charities, alongside other factors, the challenges facing London today are very different, and arguably lesser, than those facing Istanbul.

Turkey, like many countries outside of Western Europe, has a less established tradition of household pets than the United Kingdom (Dell'Amore). Dogs, and likely also cats, still have a longstanding historic record in Istanbul. Many of the stray dogs are community owned, fed and cared for by neighborhood residents. According to an article in the Turkish newspaper, Today’s Zaman, “[Stray dogs] have been around for centuries; ancient Ottoman texts by civil servants ruminate on what to do about İstanbul's growing stray dog population. Mark Twain, in his notes on İstanbul, wrote in 1861 that he had never seen such ‘doleful-eyed and broken-hearted stray dogs’ anywhere else in his life” (Altıntaş). Unlike in the United Kingdom, no charity or legislative infrastructure was established early on. In 1910, many of the stray dogs were rounded up and transported to an island off the coast of Turkey where they did not have adequate food and water, a measure that was met with opposition from both dogs and residents (Mortada). In recent years, rapid urbanization has been associated with continual growth of the stray cat and dog populations (Johnson, Un and Fooks 307). Although it appears no drastic measures have been taken since 1910, there is very little information available about modern animal control efforts prior to the passing of the 1986 Law Number 3285 Law on Livestock Health and the implementation of the Animal Protection Law Number 5199 in 2004, which directly addresses cat and dog welfare. Many Istanbul citizens seem attached to the stray dogs and cats and even care for them as neighborhood pets. While free-roaming dogs can enrich communities with their presence, they also can cause traffic accidents, injury through aggressive behavior, nuisance or fouling nuisance, and the risk of transmission of disease to humans (International Companion 5|Page

Animal Management Coalition 4). Turkey is the only European country that still has cases of rabies in urban dogs, although rates of the disease are relatively low and have been decreasing since the early 1980s (Johnson, Un and Fooks 305). Nevertheless, the necessity to eradicate rabies in the country, which is primarily associated with urban areas and Istanbul particularly, is one driving factor behind past and current animal control policies.

Current Policy and Practice The United Kingdom is a part of the European Union and, while Turkey is not, it has long been in negotiations to join and is working to conform to its policies. The European Union regulations from the Treaty of Amsterdam, however, provide little guidance on animal welfare policy, stating only that member states must “pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals” (BBC). The member states therefore have a great degree of agency in constructing their policies and systems. In addition to outlawing the mistreatment of animals, which most legislation accomplishes, welfare policy, whether in legislation or in practice, also typically has the responsibility of addressing stray and feral animals. The primary options for control include mass killing, mass sheltering, and mass sterilization and vaccination (Dell'Amore). Rounding up animals and leaving them at a remote location is also a less commonly used option (Dell'Amore).

In the simplest terms, London’s current animal welfare policy involves mass sheltering, while Istanbul’s is based in mass sterilization and vaccination. All stray animals in London are taken to charity-run shelters. The logistics of containing all Istanbul’s free-roaming dogs in shelters make this option next to impossible. For this reasons, among others, Istanbul has adopted a TrapNeuter-Return (TNR) policy for stray dogs and cats. The animals are caught, spayed or neutered, vaccinated, tagged, and released. In reality, of course, the policies are mixed. Shelters in London utilize sterilization and vaccination for feral animals and Istanbul municipalities shelter animals that are not healthy enough to survive on the street. Additionally, while euthanization of healthy, non-dangerous animals is illegal in Turkey, some reports allege that it still occurs (Altıntaş).

Although the practice is not illegal in the United Kingdom few shelters in London use it, largely because they have capacity to meet demand.

London’s cat and dog management system operates almost exclusively through charities, which are funded by donations rather than the government. The RSPCA website explains that by maintaining independent sources of funding, they also maintain autonomy in making moral decisions outside of the law. Although charities often struggle for funding, especially during economic downturn, some of them have the advantages of being long-established and well known. Battersea Cats and Dogs, for example, often receives large legacy donations and attention, even from celebrities. Charles Dickens once wrote an article to support the shelter. More recently, it has become the “go-to charity of the rich and famous” (Dunnett).

Alexander McQueen even left the organization £100,000 upon his death. With the help of strong fundraising roots, the shelter rehomes approximately 6,000 dogs and 3,000 cats every Figure 2: Crowd outside Battersea for year (Dunnett). Of course, this is not typical of Valentine’s Day cats event 6|Page

all London shelters, but there is a significant amount of voluntary funding for animal welfare in the city, even organizations without celebrity supporters.

The roots of Turkey’s animal charities may not be as deep, but they are equally committed to the cause. In 2008, the country’s animal welfare associations banded together to found HAYTAP, which has since become a relatively strong force in affecting policy (HAYTAP). Most recently, the organization made headlines in 2012 with their campaign against a proposed amendment to law 5199. The amendment, which was successfully defeated, would have created ‘natural parks,’ open areas for large numbers of free-roaming dogs, in rural areas of Turkey. Animal activists were concerned that the needs of these dogs would not be met in the parks and that they were simply an outlet for supporters of the law to remove the dogs from urban areas. When the amendment was defeated, however, so was its provision for stricter punishment of animal abusers, a policy change that the animal welfare organizations still support (Lentz).

Although little information is available about the income of HAYTAP’s member organizations, one article reports that money is tight and the volunteers often pay out of pocket for resources like dog food (Mortada). The lack of funding makes sense intuitively, as HAYTAP and its members have a less established presence than their counterparts in the United Kingdom as the tradition of adopting pets is less entrenched in Turkey’s culture. However, this also makes the task of caring for and controlling Istanbul’s stray dogs and cats a more difficult one. In both London and Istanbul, the organizations cooperate with the municipal governments and take on responsibilities, but they serve different roles in each city. In London, the charities run the shelters, while in Istanbul, municipalities run shelters and charities work to feed and monitor animals on the streets, many of whom have been vaccinated and neutered by municipal shelters.

These different NGO roles can be partially sourced to the countries’ different approaches to controlling strays. Confining all un-owned domestic animals to shelters is the accepted practice in most Western countries, however it is not necessarily the best method. Evidence from biological and behavioral science suggests that shelters can have negative psychological effects on dogs. In one study, levels of the stress hormone cortisol were elevated in dogs during their first 3 days in shelters, but human contact had an ameliorating influence. (Tuber, Miller and Caris 380). Although London does not currently have this issue, if animals in shelters are not adopted and the shelter is over capacity, many of these Western shelters will euthanize some of the animals. However, in systems similar to Turkey’s, while free-roaming dogs may be exposed to more opportunities for positive human contact, they are also exposed to the potential for abuse and other risks, like malnutrition and injury from traffic accidents. Istanbul’s TNR policy also has its critics, particularly among conservation biologists who argue that the presence of stray animals is not only a welfare issue, but also an environmental one, especially as domestic cats are one of the 100 worst invasive species globally (Longcore, Rich and Sulivan 888). Although animal welfare is a primary concern when constructing policy, elements like public health and environmental balance must also be taken into consideration, which makes the process even more complex.

7|Page

Primary Perspectives Interviews with key staff members in each country provided insight about the practicality of policy implementation. An interview with an animal welfare officer in a small London shelter revealed aspects of the animal welfare system in the city, although not all elements of that shelter’s experience may be characteristic of all charities.

The shelter gets its animals from previously owned pets that are unwanted, stray dogs brought in by municipal dog wardens, stray cats that are called in, and animals that have been dumped. Although strays are not as readily visible in London as in Istanbul, they do exist and must be addressed. This particular shelter, and likely others, have a Trap-Neuter-Return policy for feral cats similar to the programs run by Istanbul municipalities for all stray cats. If the shelter determines that a free-roaming cat is stray and not feral, it will bring it in for rehoming.

The distinction is made primarily by how the cat responds to human interaction: cats who interact with humans like pets might are not feral, but those react violently and refuse to interact probably are. As of mid-March, the shelter had neutered 75 feral cats this year, taken in 34 cats and 4 dogs from cruelty cases, and sheltered 28 stray cats and 25 stray dogs. The Trap-NeuterReturn program is a large part of their intake. As a smaller shelter, however, a significant portion of their focus is on outreach programs. The programs at this shelter include international training and mass vaccination programs. Although they do not do work in Turkey, the programs they have in other Asian and Eastern European countries parallel those that other charities have implemented in Turkey. Their outreach programs, however, primarily involve working with pet owners in London. They work with animals with homeless owners in shelters, animals belonging to people in travelers’ camps, and animals whose owners are in the hospital. The shelter also provides phobia sessions for people who are afraid of dogs. This program is perhaps partially a testament to the public presence of owned pets in the city. Additionally, staff members visit schools to educate students about responsible pet ownership and provide free micro chipping for dogs in public parks. Starting in 2016, a new law in the United Kingdom will make microchipping mandatory for all owned cats and dogs. Microchips allow for shelters, governments, and other organizations to learn information about an animal like who its owner is and whether or not it has been vaccinated. Micro chipping is currently practiced regularly in shelters, along with neutering and vaccinating, but has not been mandatory to date. The law will likely be enforced through checking pet shops, breeders, veterinary clinics, and shelters, rather than by targeting individual pet owners, however the practicalities of assuring people conform may be difficult.

If London does not have shelters funded by the government, what role do municipalities play in domestic animal control? Each municipality, or borough in the case of London, has dog wardens who bring in stray dogs to shelters that they have contracts with. If there is no room at the primary contracted shelter in their borough, they will take the stray to another shelter they may also contract with. In the case of this shelter, if the animal is claimed the owner pays the money spent to care for it. If not, the borough council pays the fee. Animals may be euthanized if they have an untreatable illness, pose a danger, or are found to be a member of a banned breed, such as pit-bull terriers. Euthanization of healthy animals, however, is not currently illegal in the United Kingdom, however most if not all London shelters do not practice it. The shelters typically have room and, if they don’t, Battersea nearly always does and can take in overflow strays from all over the city. The interviewee described Battersea as ‘massive’ as well as having 8|Page

high turnover due to a strong public profile. It appears the key to the system working, aside from relatively low overall number of strays, is communication between the government and shelters.

The shelters even occasionally cooperate with each other on specific projects. By garnering funding through donations, they are able to maintain independence but also play a key role in caring for the city’s animals.

The system functions oppositely in a sense in Istanbul. Municipal shelters trap stray animals with the help of charity groups. The shelters are entirely government funded and do not accept donations. Istanbul has approximately 30 of these, but unlike London’s shelters, they are only temporary accommodations to hold strays while they are neutered, vaccinated, micro chipped, and marked to indicate they have been taken care of. Stray cats, like feral cats in London, get the tip cut off their ears and dogs receive a tattoo and a colorful ear tag. The animals are then released where they were collected. It is illegal to transport free-roaming dogs from one municipality to another, to prevent the previously common practice of dumping strays so they were the responsibility of another municipality. It is evident, however, that transporting the animals still happens. Each ear tag color corresponds to a municipality, but the dogs on each street display a rainbow of colored tags. Istanbul is also working to build a shelter to permanently hold animals who are too sick, old, or injured to survive on the streets. The facility, which is under construction, will cost approximately 12.5 million USD and house 5,650 dogs.

It was apparent from the interview that the Animal Protection Law caused a complete overhaul of the system. Nearly all of the impressive infrastructure described here has been built since the law was passed in 2004, including the shelters. Over the past couple of years, the municipalities have also begun buying food for the street dogs and cats to supplement the efforts already being made by animal welfare organizations. Cooperation with the animal charities, which is also mandated under the law, helps municipalities to find homes for stray animals. Even so, only about 700 dogs were adopted last year through the shelter system. In both Istanbul and London, breeders and pet shops are popular places to adopt animals. Istanbul also has issues with breed-based racism, in which imported dogs like Golden Retrievers are sometimes favored over free-roaming breeds. The interviewee suggested that people may not want to adopt animals because of the confines of small urban homes. London, however, has high pet ownership despite similar housing circumstances, indicating there may be deeper causes for the differences. He also pointed out that many Turkish heroes are featured with their pets. Dogs appear to be deeply a part of Turkish culture, but perhaps in a different way than in the United Kingdom.

Visibility in Urban Spaces If and in what way domestic animals are present in public spaces reflects both cultural attitudes toward pet ownership and policies of animal control. The form of physical presence of animals in public spaces can also create effects of its own. For example, it is because British visitors in Turkey saw dogs roaming the streets that they decided to take action. In London, the public visibility of images of animals at Battersea Cats and Dogs home in advertisements, as well as the semi-public display of their shelter animals during certain events and regular opening hours, undoubtedly encourages people to donate to the cause. For Valentine’s Day, the shelter hosted a “Feline Lonely” event, featured in the popular events publication Time Out London, during which visitors could enjoy Champagne and visit with the animals for a donation of £2.

It’s difficult to imagine a comparable event occurring in Istanbul 9|Page

Figure 3: Three stray cats outside Topkapi Palace, Istanbul

Figure 4: Owned dog lounges off-leash in Hyde Park, London

Volume is another notable way in which presence of domestic animals differs between London and Istanbul. The sheer number of dogs and cats in public spaces is much higher in Istanbul than in London. Venue and form of visibility, however, also differentiate the two cities.

In Istanbul, the areas in which cats and dogs are allowed to be are much broader. Some owners can be seen walking dogs on leashes, but most animals in public are strays. Free-roaming cats and dogs can be found in almost all public spaces and even some semi-public spaces, like the occasional stray cat in the Hagia Sophia gift shop. This may be due to relaxed rules or the impracticality of actually excluding free-roaming animals.

While the occasional stray or feral cat can be spotted in London neighborhoods, the majority of animals without homes are confined to shelters, which have limited public access. Occasionally, a dog with a homeless owner can be seen sitting in the shelter of an underground station, but most domestic animals in public spaces are on leashes in the street, on the Underground, in the markets, or, most often, in public parks. A sign in one of London’s eight royal parks reads “dogs must be kept on a leash in this area” because the expectation is that they are otherwise allowed to roam freely within the confines of the park.

Figure 5: Prohibitory sign in Hyde Park

10 | P a g e

Figure 6: Stray dog with bed and food bowl outside grocery store in Istanbul

The way that animals interact with passersby in public spaces in London is typically more reserved than in Istanbul.

Although some free-roaming dogs and cats in Istanbul keep away from people, many are friendly and open to petting. Some even have beds and food supplies provided to them by community members. Conversely, because most of the London animals are owned and have presumably been trained to stay near their owners off their leashes, they are more likely to act aloof towards strangers.

International Outreach Turkey has been a focal point for international animal welfare organizations in recent years. The 2007 report by the International Companion Animal Management Coalition, or ICAM Coalition, entitled “Human Dog Population Management Guidance” has been translated into nine different languages, including Turkish. The World Organization for Animal Health highlights this measure in their 2011 report on the implementation of welfare standards worldwide. In addition to an image of the translated ICAM Coalition report, the section on Turkey includes the fact that the RSPCA has trained 85 staff members in three of Istanbul’s municipal shelters on dog control and humane handling. In summarizing outcomes, the report seems pessimistic about the country’s progress on the issue, citing a “continuing large problem with street dogs” and poor awareness and standards (World Organization for Animal Health 17).

The United Kingdom is a significant player in the international outreach to aid the cause of animal welfare in Turkey. The RSPCA is one of the leading UK animal charities.

Additionally, British citizens have gotten involved with the issue independently. In 2008 two British women organized the World Rally for Turkish Strays after one of them noticed many free-roaming dogs she had befriended in the country had disappeared. Hundreds of people in Istanbul and cities in nine other nations, including London, demonstrated to protest illegal killings (Altıntaş). Evidence also exists of smaller-scale but more direct efforts. A 2011 story in a local London paper tells of a London couple who made the effort to bring a Turkish stray home to England, which was made easier and cheaper by a change in legislation around that time (Conner). Another website describes an organization, now defunct by all appearances, called the Turkish Animal Group (TAG). TAG was a small shelter started by a British woman that cared for and rehomed strays to Turkish families, British families living in Turkey, and even some families outside of Turkey (Didim Today). Efforts like these make little difference in solving Turkey’s animal welfare challenges more broadly, but they demonstrate the global nature of the issue. Global partnerships, UK national organizations, and concerned animal-lovers alike are extending their care and resources to aid Turkey in developing its policy and implementation. It is important that efforts be made with appropriate knowledge and understanding of where Turkey stands in relationship to this issue, so that the organizations and governments can best cooperate to create a better environment for domestic animals and human residents.

11 | P a g e

Recommendations With rapidly growing urban populations in both London and Istanbul, it is unsurprising that the number of non-human city occupants is also rising. This trend has implications for issues like public health, but the issue is greater than its consequences. For centuries cats and dogs have been integral parts of people’s families and communities. From purebreds in Kensington to freeroaming mutts in Istanbul, animals matter to people, and therefore they should matter to urban policy makers.

While animal control has garnered attention as urban dwellers from key stakeholders, like charities and the government, it is important that other citizens are also aware of the issue and how to address it. Both cities have put forth some education efforts, primarily in schools, to teach people about responsible dog ownership and how to respond to stray dogs that they might encounter, however more can and should be done, especially as the implementation of London’s new micro chipping law approaches. Informational programs like these should be a key part of animal welfare and control policies moving forward. They will help to create healthier coexistence through understanding, as well as to curb and manage the population through knowledge of neutering and micro chipping. Collecting more accurate data about the issue and facilitating further cooperation between key stakeholders in municipalities and animal charities will likely help both cities, but particularly Istanbul, to make strides in caring for their animal inhabitants Education and communication are only two facts of a successful policy. London and Istanbul have different histories concerning this issue and, therefore, disparate challenges to meet and different attitudes towards pet ownership. Istanbul has made huge strides with the new policies of the Animal Protection Law, but implementation is not yet consistent across all municipalities. Even if the policy was well implemented and amply funded, the number of stray animals Turkish authorities and charities have to care for is borderline overwhelming.

Conversely, London‘s animal control system has little direct government involvement, but it is so long established and well-funded by donations that the lack of legislative support is rarely an issue. This does not mean, however, that London does not have its own challenges to confront; they are simply on a different scale. Istanbul and London, in their population control efforts, face similar obstacles regarding the prominence of breeders. As London’s system relies almost exclusively on donations and the continuing success of Battersea Cats and Dogs home, if either of these were to fail, the infrastructure likely also would. Additionally, London soon will have to address, at a systematic level, the moral issues related to euthanizing healthy animals.

No one solution to the issue in any city exists, and certainly not one that can be directly transplanted from one national context to another. Organizations like the ICAM Coalition have published documents with case studies of successful management programs, but any policy changes must be constructed and implemented with cultural and historical context in mind and, ideally, will include consultation of city residents. Istanbul’s challenges may be more visibly apparent in the cityscape, but London certainly also has obstacles in cat and dog welfare. Both cities will have to grapple with the sustainability of their systems both in terms of funding and structure, as the cities continue to grow and develop. The cities must work to build more comprehensive policies for animal welfare and control and implement these appropriately in cooperation with their human citizens in order to address an element of the urban landscape that is often overlooked: those inhabitants that cannot speak for themselves.

12 | P a g e

Bibliography Altıntaş, Barış. "The World Marches to Save Turkey's Stray Dogs." Today's Zaman 3 October 2008.

Batson, Amber. "Global Companion Animal Ownership and Trade: Project Summary." 2008. Online.

BBC. Welfare Law in the UK. 2014. Online. 30 March 2014.

Conner, Rachel. "Beckenham Couple Worried Bringing Turkish Street Puppy Home Could Cost Thousands." This is Local London News 1 November 2011. Online.

Dell'Amore, Christine. "Stray Dogs in Sochi: What Happens to the World's Free-Roaming Canines?"

National Geographic 6 February 2014. Online.

Didim Today. Turkish Animal Group. 05 November 2010. Online. 30 March 2014.

Dunnett, Richard. "Ahead of The Pack." Director December 2012. Online.

Gedge, Matt. "Hyde Park pet cemetery." funlondontours.com. London, October 2013. Online.

Guerrero-Stewart, Topacio Ariel. "Cat, possibly stray or owned, on a car in West London." London, February 2014.

—. "Crowd outside Battersea for Valentine's Day event." London, February 2014. Online.

—. "Free roaming dog outside mosque in Istanbul." Istanbul, February 2014.

—. "Three stray cats outside Topkapi Palace." Istanbul, February 2014. Online.

HAYTAP. Animal Protection Bill LAw No. 5199. 28 May 2007. Online. 30 March 2014.

—. HAYTAP Manifesto. 20 October 2008. Online. 30 March 2014.

International Companion Animal Management Coalition. "Humane Dog Population Management Guidance." 2007. Online.

Johnson, N, et al. "Review Article: RAbies Epidemiology and Control in Turkey Past and Present."

Epidemiological Infections (2010): 305-312. Online.

Kean, Hilda. "Traces and Representations: Animal Pasts in London's Present." The London Journal (2011): 54-71. Online.

Lentz, Hanna. International Fund for Animal Welfare: Amending Turkey's Animal Welfare Law Would be Bad News for Street Dogs. 26 September 2012. Online. 30 March 2014.

Longcore, Travis, Catherine Rich and Lauren M Sulivan. "Critical Assessment of Claims Regarding Management of Feral Cats by Trap-Neuter-Return." Conservation Biology (2008): 887-895.

Online.

13 | P a g e

Mortada, Dalia. "Istanbul's Forgotten Dogs Struggle for Survival." Deutsche Welle 8 October 2013.

Online.

Parliament. Animal Welfare Act 2006. 8 November 2006. Online. 30 March 2014.

Roberts, Clara. "Owned dog lounges off-leash in Hyde Park, London." London, March 2014. Online.

—. "Stray dog with bed and food bowl outside grocery store." Istanbul, February 2014. Online.

—. "Prohibitory sign in Hyde Park." London, March 2014. Online.

Tuber, David S, et al. "Dogs in Animal Shelters: Problems, Suggestions, and Needed Expertise."

Psychological Science (1999): 379-386. Online.

World Organization for Animal Health. "Implementing OIE Animal Welfare Standards: The Role That Civil Society Plays." 2008. Online.

Acknowledgments I owe a tremendous thank you to everyone involved in the Global Urban Lab program for providing me with the opportunity to visit and better understand two fascinating and beautiful cities. Throughout the semester, Professor Emerson has been an invaluable resource on this project. Thank you for your support and knowledge. Thank you to Dr. Goymen at the Istanbul Policy Center for helping inspire me to explore a topic outside of my comfort zone. Thank you to our coach driver in Istanbul who went out of his way to make sure I made it safely to my interview appointment. Thank you to the staff members that I interviewed in each city for making time in your busy schedule and sharing your opinions openly. Finally, I am grateful for the support of Ipek Martinez, Abbey Godley, Giray Özşeker, and Dr. Nia Georges. The trip, and this project, could not have happened without all of your efforts.

14 | P a g e