Last reviewed: August 2026
The Dog Desk Animal Action Global Stray Dog Crisis Map monitors significant developments affecting stray, free roaming and unowned dogs around the world.
The map is designed to identify where dogs may be facing increased risk as a result of changes in law, government policy, population management practices, shelter systems, enforcement or other significant developments.
It is an evidence led monitoring and advocacy tool.
The map is not a scientific index, league table or assessment of a country’s people, culture or overall approach to animals.
Countries can and do change classification as circumstances develop.
What We Are Assessing
The map assesses the current environment for stray, free roaming and unowned dogs.
We are particularly interested in developments that can materially affect what happens to dogs.
These may include:
- changes in legislation
- government or municipal policy
- large scale collection or removal programmes
- euthanasia or killing policies
- culling programmes
- shelter capacity and conditions
- restrictions affecting community dogs
- spay, neuter and vaccination programmes
- significant court decisions
- enforcement practices
- population management programmes
- transparency and traceability
- abandonment and displacement
- significant changes in the treatment or legal status of stray dogs
A country’s classification is not determined simply by the estimated number of stray dogs living there.
A country with a large free roaming dog population may have comparatively protective policies, while a country with fewer stray dogs may introduce measures that significantly increase the risk faced by those animals.
The central question is:
What is happening to stray dogs, and is the environment in which they are living becoming safer or more dangerous?
Our Classifications
CRISIS
Red
A Crisis classification indicates that there is credible evidence of serious or widespread threats to the welfare, safety or survival of stray or free roaming dogs.
Factors may include:
- government-sanctioned or officially permitted killing
- large scale culling
- policies creating a substantial risk of widespread killing or euthanasia
- mass collection or removal where adequate safeguards or capacity are absent
- serious shelter capacity concerns associated with large-scale collection
- significant evidence of dogs disappearing from communities without adequate traceability
- systemic or widespread welfare failures
- major legal or policy changes substantially reducing protections
- sustained patterns of serious harm
- multiple concurrent developments creating an acute risk to dogs
A country does not have to meet every one of these conditions to be classified as Crisis.
Classification is based on the overall weight, seriousness and scale of the available evidence.
WATCHLIST
Amber
A Watchlist classification means that developments have been identified which could negatively affect stray dogs or which require closer monitoring.
These may include:
- proposed legislation
- emerging government policies
- changes in enforcement
- increased collection activity
- new shelter programmes
- concerning statements from authorities
- localised reports of killing or mistreatment
- court proceedings with potentially significant consequences
- deteriorating shelter conditions
- population management changes
- significant uncertainty about the treatment or destination of collected dogs
Watchlist does not necessarily mean that a widespread crisis is occurring.
It means there is sufficient cause for concern that developments should be followed closely.
A country may move from Watchlist to Crisis if the situation deteriorates.
Equally, it may be removed from Watchlist if concerns are resolved or evidence demonstrates improvement.
STABLE
Green
Stable indicates that we have not identified current evidence sufficient to classify the country as Crisis or Watchlist.
This may include countries where established systems for managing stray or free roaming dogs appear comparatively stable, or where previously identified concerns have improved.
Stable does not mean perfect.
Animal welfare problems, individual cases of cruelty, abandonment, shelter difficulties or localised problems may still occur.
The classification simply means that the available evidence does not currently indicate the level of systemic or emerging risk required for Crisis or Watchlist classification.
Stable countries remain subject to review.
How We Assess Evidence
Dog Desk Animal Action uses publicly available and, where appropriate, directly obtained information to monitor developments.
Sources may include:
- legislation
- government publications
- official statistics
- parliamentary or legislative records
- court judgments and filings
- municipal documents
- official statements
- public authority records
- published academic research
- veterinary and animal welfare research
- established news organisations
- recognised animal welfare organisations
- information obtained directly through Dog Desk Animal Action’s work
- credible first hand material where its origin can reasonably be established
Not every source carries equal evidential weight.
Where possible, we seek the original or primary source behind a claim.
Our Evidence Hierarchy
Where information is available from several sources, greater weight will normally be given to primary evidence.
This includes legislation, court decisions, official records, government data and directly attributable statements.
Independent professional research and credible reporting may provide important additional evidence and context.
Information published by campaigners, rescue organisations, volunteers, community members and social media users can also identify significant developments, but allegations are not automatically treated as established facts.
Where an important claim cannot be independently confirmed, we aim to make that uncertainty clear.
Official Claims
Government or municipal statements are important sources of information, but an official statement is not automatically treated as proof that the situation described is occurring exactly as claimed.
Where possible, official claims are compared with:
- published data
- legislation
- implementation records
- shelter capacity
- independent reporting
- court records
- other available evidence
The same principle applies to claims made by animal welfare organisations, campaigners and other interested parties.
We assess evidence according to its reliability, not according to who we agree with.
Conflicting Information
Stray dog policy is frequently contested.
Government authorities, municipalities, animal welfare organisations, residents, veterinarians and campaigners may provide substantially different accounts of the same situation.
Where reliable sources conflict, Dog Desk Animal Action does not assume that one account must automatically be correct.
We look for corroborating evidence and, where appropriate, identify the disagreement.
A classification may remain under review while important facts are being established.
Social Media Evidence
Images, videos and first hand accounts shared online can provide important evidence, particularly where events receive little conventional media coverage.
They also require caution.
Where social media material contributes to our assessment, we consider factors including:
- whether the original source can be identified
- location
- date
- surrounding context
- whether the material has been independently corroborated
- whether official or other reliable records support the claim
An image or short video alone may not establish why an event occurred, who was responsible or what happened before or afterwards.
We distinguish between what material shows and what someone claims it proves.
Geographic Differences Within Countries
Conditions can vary significantly within a single country.
Legislation may be national while implementation is regional or municipal.
One city may operate a comparatively effective programme while another experiences serious welfare problems.
For that reason, a national classification should not be interpreted as meaning that identical conditions exist everywhere within that country.
Where a concern is clearly localised, we aim to make that distinction in our reporting.
However, local developments may influence a national classification where they reveal wider systemic problems or where similar patterns are occurring across multiple jurisdictions.
Classification Decisions
There is no automatic numerical formula determining classification.
This is deliberate.
Reliable and comparable international data on stray dog populations, shelter intake, euthanasia, collection and outcomes is not consistently available.
Assigning numerical scores to incomplete or fundamentally different datasets could create a misleading impression of scientific precision.
Instead, Dog Desk Animal Action considers the scale, severity, credibility, immediacy and persistence of the available evidence.
Particular attention is given to developments capable of affecting large numbers of dogs or fundamentally changing their legal protection, treatment or fate.
Reclassification
Classifications are not permanent.
A country can move:
Stable → Watchlist → Crisis
or:
Crisis → Watchlist → Stable
as circumstances change.
Evidence of improvement is treated as seriously as evidence of deterioration.
The purpose of the map is to monitor change not to permanently label countries.
Review Process
The Global Stray Dog Crisis Map is monitored throughout the year.
A review may be triggered by:
- new legislation
- a significant court judgment
- a major government announcement
- evidence of large-scale collection
- reports of killing or culling
- significant shelter developments
- substantial new research or data
- credible evidence contradicting an existing assessment
- a significant improvement in policy or practice
Not every development will result in a classification change.
Limitations
International monitoring of stray dog welfare presents significant challenges.
There is no single global reporting system.
Definitions of “stray”, “community”, “free-roaming”, “unowned” and “shelter” dogs vary between jurisdictions.
Population estimates can differ dramatically.
Some governments publish detailed statistics. Others publish very little.
Collection figures may be available without information about what subsequently happened to the dogs.
Shelter capacity may be reported without reliable occupancy data.
Laws may exist without consistent enforcement.
Conversely, effective local practices may exist without being formally documented.
Media freedom and access to shelters or public records also vary considerably between countries.
For these reasons, absence of publicly available evidence should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that no welfare problem exists.
Equally, isolated incidents should not automatically be treated as evidence of a national systemic problem.
Our classifications represent our assessment of the best information reasonably available to us at the time.
Corrections and New Evidence
We welcome evidence that may improve the accuracy of the Global Stray Dog Crisis Map.
Government bodies, municipalities, researchers, veterinarians, animal welfare organisations and members of the public may contact Dog Desk Animal Action if they believe:
- a classification should be reconsidered
- information has become outdated
- relevant official data is available
- an important development has been missed
- a factual error requires correction
Evidence is reviewed on its merits.
Providing new evidence does not guarantee that a classification will change.
Where credible information demonstrates that our assessment is no longer justified, we will amend it.
Independence of Assessment
The classifications published on the Global Stray Dog Crisis Map are assessments made by Dog Desk Animal Action CIC.
They should not be interpreted as classifications issued or endorsed by governments, international organisations or regulatory authorities unless explicitly stated.
Dog Desk Animal Action may campaign for policy change in countries appearing on the map.
Our advocacy does not remove our responsibility to distinguish evidence from allegation and to update our assessment when circumstances change.
Purpose of the Map
The Global Stray Dog Crisis Map exists because significant changes affecting stray dogs can occur with little international attention.
By bringing those developments together, we aim to make emerging patterns easier to identify, encourage transparency, support informed discussion and provide a starting point for further research.
The map is intended to ask a simple but important question:
What is happening to the world’s stray dogs?
And, where the evidence shows they are at risk:
What needs to change?
Methodology Change Log
August 2026 — Methodology published
Formal definitions introduced for Crisis, Watchlist and Stable classifications, together with evidence, review, correction and reclassification principles.
Future substantive changes to the methodology will be recorded here.
Further Information
Global Stray Dog Crisis Map
[VIEW THE MAP]
Country Reports
[VIEW COUNTRY REPORTS]
Global Animal Welfare News Bulletin
[READ THE LATEST BULLETIN]
Media Centre
[MEDIA ENQUIRIES]
For questions concerning the methodology or to submit relevant evidence:
Dog Desk Animal Action CIC
help@dogdeskanimalaction.com