The Senate has returned the bill on regulating the number of stray animals to the Mazhilis for revision. The document proposes transferring powers to determine the procedure and timeline for capturing and euthanising animals to local maslikhats, rather than having a single national standard.
WHY THE BILL WAS RETURNED FOR REVISION
Senators, representatives of state bodies, animal rights activists, and public figures took part in the discussion. Following the work, deputies concluded that adjustments were necessary.
The Senate also reported that the document was discussed at five working group meetings, during which more than 300 appeals were received from citizens.
WHAT AMENDMENTS DID SENATORS PROPOSE
Key changes include:
- the procedure and timeline for regulating the number of stray animals would be determined by the maslikhats of each region independently;
- it is proposed to remove the term 'euthanasia' from Article 15;
- the main criterion for a stray animal is proposed to be the absence of an owner, rather than just having a microchip.
Senators noted that mandatory microchipping of all domestic pets within a short timeframe could be difficult, especially in rural areas. In their view, the new wording would avoid difficulties in law enforcement.
CONTEXT AND SIGNIFICANCE
This concerns the bill amending the Law 'On Responsible Treatment of Animals'. The document proposes changing approaches to regulating the number of stray animals, including introducing minimum holding periods — 5 days for stray animals and 60 days for animals with potential owners, after which euthanasia is permitted if the animal is not rehomed.
Previously, the Senate did not provide an assessment of this bill: the document arrived in the upper house on 15 April 2026 and was at the study stage. Speaker of the Senate, Maulen Ashimbayev, stated that senators required additional time for a detailed analysis of the provisions.
Furthermore, Deputy Ministers Azamat Amrin and Yerzhan Birzhanov expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the idea of introducing a tax on dog ownership, pointing to the risks of increased pet abandonment and administrative difficulties.