In early April 2026, Kazakhstan’s lower house of parliament, the Mazhilis, approved in the first reading amendments to the law “On Responsible Treatment of Animals.” The key proposed change is a shift away from the policy of returning vaccinated and sterilized dogs to their habitats, toward the legalization of euthanasia.
The decision has triggered a sharp public divide: supporters cite safety concerns, particularly for children, while critics view the amendments as a rollback of the humane principles enshrined in the 2021 law and an attempt to compensate for institutional shortcomings through the mass culling of stray animals.
Background: From Reform to Reversal
In 2021, Kazakhstan sought to overhaul its approach to managing stray animal populations, aligning it with international practices. This led to the adoption of a dedicated law, which formalized a transition from culling to the CNVR model (capture, neuter, vaccinate, and return). The reform was presented as a compromise between humane treatment and public safety.
The shift was driven by both civic activism and political momentum. In 2020, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev described attitudes toward animals as a benchmark of societal development, acknowledging systemic shortcomings in the country. He later emphasized that state protection should extend to both people and animals.
The initiative received support both domestically and internationally. Authorities pledged a systemic approach, including the creation of a national animal registry, mandatory microchipping, expansion of shelters, and tighter regulation of pet ownership. The expectation was that these measures would gradually reduce the stray population in a humane and sustainable manner.
The Case for the Amendments: Safety and Cost
The amendments, introduced in 2024, propose a transition to a no-return capture model. Despite criticism from animal welfare groups, the bill passed its first reading on April 8, 2026, and was forwarded to the Senate eight days later.
Lawmakers, including Mazhilis committee chairman Yedil Zhanbyrshin, argue that the CNVR model has failed to deliver results under Kazakhstan’s conditions. They cite an increase in the stray dog population from 207,000 in 2022 to 247,000 in 2023.
Another factor highlighted is the unintended consequence of mandatory microchipping introduced in 2023. According to lawmakers, the cost of registration and sterilization, averaging around 27,000 KZT (approximately $54), led some owners to abandon their pets. This, they argue, is reflected in the sharp decline in registered dogs, from 28,000 in 2022 to just 961 in 2024.
Public safety remains the central argument. According to the Ministry of Health, Kazakhstan records an average of 105 animal attacks per day.
Fiscal considerations are also significant. A full CNVR program is estimated to require annual spending of 14-15 billion KZT (approximately $28-30 million). Against the backdrop of competing budget priorities, including education and healthcare, lawmakers consider such expenditures excessive. They also point to practices in countries such as the United States and Japan, where euthanasia is used as a population control measure.
Under the proposed model, captured animals would be held for a limited period, 15 days for unchipped dogs and 60 days for those with identified owners. If no owner or adopter is found within that timeframe, the animal would be put down.
The Case Against: Implementation Failure, Not Model Failure
Animal welfare organizations, including the KARE Foundation and the INUCOBO Association, challenge these conclusions, presenting alternative data. Their central argument is that the issue lies not in the CNVR model itself, but in its poor implementation.
At a press conference in Almaty, opponents presented an audit of the 2021 law’s enforcement. Their conclusion was clear: the law did not fail, it was never properly implemented.
International experience suggests that CNVR becomes effective only when at least 70% of the stray population is covered. In Kazakhstan, coverage has fallen far short of that threshold. In 2022, only 58 dogs were sterilized nationwide, while more than 80,000 animals were culled. In 2024, 85.3% of the 268,000 captured animals were killed. In 2025, of 276,000 captured dogs, only 12.6% were sterilized, while nearly 85% were euthanized.
Critics argue that under such conditions, it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of a humane approach. In practice, large-scale culling continued, while the promised shelter infrastructure was not developed.
INUCOBO also cites recommendations from the World Organization for Animal Health, which do not recognize euthanasia as an effective method of population control. Experts emphasize that CNVR is a long-term strategy: it reduces reproduction in the early stages, with measurable population decline occurring only over time.
According to animal welfare advocates, current policy addresses symptoms rather than root causes, primarily irresponsible pet ownership.
They also dispute the narrative surrounding public safety risks. In Almaty, of more than 6,100 recorded bite incidents in 2025, only around 10% involved stray dogs. The majority were caused by owned animals allowed to roam freely or kept without proper containment.
A similar pattern is observed in fatal incidents. According to the Bureau of National Statistics, dog attacks result in roughly one death per year. Many high-profile cases have occurred in regions where CNVR programs were not implemented.
What Comes Next: Senate Review
The bill is now under consideration in the Senate. Senate Speaker Maulen Ashimbayev has said lawmakers will conduct a detailed review aimed at balancing public safety with principles of humane treatment.
At the same time, the government’s position appears to be less than unified. According to local media reports, representatives of the Presidential Administration have expressed reservations about several of the proposed amendments, suggesting that the debate extends beyond parliament.
The final decision could shape not only animal control policy, but also the broader direction of governance between short-term administrative solutions and long-term institutional reform.
