In the Siberian city of Novosibirsk, local lawmakers are advancing a controversial measure that would permit large-scale killing of stray animals. The proposal contradicts both federal policy and the results of humane control programs that had previously shown clear success.
A Turn Away from Humane Policy
Official data from the regional Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology indicate that between 2019 and 2024, reported dog-bite incidents steadily declined across Novosibirsk Oblast. The drop coincided with the introduction of nationwide sterilisation and vaccination programs initiated on the order of President Vladimir Putin. Those measures, based on the TNVR approach — trap, neuter, vaccinate, return — were designed to stabilise stray populations without cruelty.
Despite this progress, members of the Novosibirsk City Council have now endorsed a proposal to resume the practice of killing homeless animals. This move reverses the country’s 2018 commitment to end lethal population control after it was deemed both ineffective and inhumane.
Political and Legal Opposition
The idea has already sparked resistance at the national level. Lawmakers from the “New People” party and Federation Council member Andrey Klishas publicly condemned the initiative, stressing that mass extermination violates constitutional guarantees and the 2018 ruling of Russia’s Constitutional Court. According to Klishas, the policy not only undermines established legal principles but also discredits years of effort to build a more humane system of animal welfare.
A Financial Motive Behind the Policy
Local animal-welfare groups fear that the plan will open the door to widespread corruption. According to volunteer estimates, private contractors could earn up to 40,000 rubles for each dog killed, while oversight remains minimal. Without strict auditing, the system encourages endless “captures” purely for profit — a cycle that solves nothing and only perpetuates abuse.
The economic rationale is equally weak. Studies and international experience show that sterilisation and vaccination programs are more cost-effective over time. By preventing uncontrolled breeding and disease transmission, humane population management reduces long-term municipal spending. In contrast, extermination campaigns tend to generate recurring expenses and public backlash.
Ignoring What Already Works
Evidence from multiple Russian regions shows that humane management methods are effective when properly funded. Cities that continued sterilisation and vaccination efforts have reported fewer stray animals and lower aggression rates. Where those programs were abandoned in favor of culling, the problem often resurfaced within a few years — proving that killing alone cannot regulate population growth.
Animal-rights activists also warn of the broader social impact. The return of killing campaigns erodes public trust and normalises cruelty, sending a dangerous message to younger generations. “When the state chooses violence instead of responsibility, it teaches people the same,” one volunteer said during a rally in central Novosibirsk.
What the City Should Do Instead
Experts and activists alike propose a return to proven, humane solutions:
- Expand sterilisation and vaccination coverage, ensuring consistent results rather than sporadic interventions.
- Develop municipal shelters and adoption programs to reduce the number of animals living on the streets.
- Introduce public-awareness initiatives that promote responsible pet ownership and reduce abandonment.
- Tighten financial controls to eliminate profit-driven “capture quotas.”
Such measures require time and resources, but they deliver stable, lasting results — unlike reactive extermination policies that only mask the symptoms.
A Question of Choice
The Novosibirsk initiative is more than a local issue. It tests whether Russian regions will continue to follow the humane model promoted by the federal government or revert to outdated, punitive methods.
The experience of recent years shows that compassion and science can coexist — and that violence is neither necessary nor effective. Novosibirsk still has the opportunity to prove that progress is not a temporary experiment but a conscious, enduring commitment.
