What Romanian municipalities actually need
We asked 3,001 municipalities how they currently manage stray and owned dogs and where they reach their limits. 105 responses could be analysed. Here are the results – in full and without varnish.
How to read these figures
- Of 3,001 municipalities contacted, 132 responded. The analysis covers the 105 responses for which explicit consent to processing was given.
- A response rate of 4.4 % means the participants are a self-selected group – presumably municipalities with above-average administrative capacity, a perceived pressure to act, or both.
- The results should be read as a picture of the responding municipalities, not as a representative cross-section of all Romanian municipalities.
- Municipalities are reported at county level only, never by name. Data as of 7 September 2026.
Who responded
The survey mainly reaches small and medium-sized rural municipalities – exactly where stray dogs rarely meet any dedicated structures.
The situation on the ground
What is being done so far
Which structures are missing
Where the shoe pinches most
Municipalities rated seven areas: 1 = no problem, 5 = major problem. Shown is the average across all 105 responses. Two areas need an explanation, because their labels can be misread:
Legal / administrative requirements
The bureaucratic effort of implementation – approval procedures, public procurement rules, reporting obligations towards the county council and the prefecture. This does not refer to legal questions of animal welfare itself.
Public acceptance / complaints
The extent to which implementation is hampered by a lack of acceptance among residents – complaints about stray dogs, but also resistance to particular measures.
Cooperation so far
What support is wanted
The question asked for the annual need for support – independent of the municipality’s own current budget. For orientation: 100,000 RON is roughly 20,000 euros.
Where the pressure to act is greatest
Two questions closed the questionnaire: “How urgent is the need to act?” and “How open are you to cooperating with CAMRO?” – each on a scale from 1 to 5. A municipality counts as a priority candidate if it answered both questions with 4 or 5.
For data protection reasons only counties are named. A further 14 counties have one candidate each.
What already works well
| Organisation | County | What worked well |
|---|---|---|
| Arca lui Norocel | Prahova | Several successful neutering campaigns with a noticeable effect in the municipality |
| Tierhilfe Hoffnung – Adăpostul Smeura | Argeș | Regular neutering and microchipping – for stray dogs as well as dogs with owners |
| Asociația Sprijină Câinii Vaslui | Vaslui | Curbing the uncontrolled breeding of stray dogs |
| Asociația YOYO Saschiz | Mureș | Steady, prompt support through funding and material donations, very good communication |
| C1 Tierschutz | Timiș | Over 160 animals neutered in two campaigns last year, the third is already organised |
| Happy Tails Brașov | Brașov | Triangle model: the veterinary practice does the catching, the shelter handles housing and rehoming |
Where animal welfare organisations are based
Sample from a single online directory (protectiaanimalelor.org, September 2026). No claim to completeness – the figures show a tendency, not official statistics.
Municipalities and organisations are not finding each other
The most common reason why a municipality has never worked with an animal welfare organisation is neither a lack of need nor rejection – it is a lack of knowledge. At the same time, numerous organisations and mobile neutering teams work in Romania that could close precisely this gap.
That is why our next step is to build a directory sorted by region: organisations and neutering teams active in Romania – so that every municipality can see who works nearby.
Are you an organisation or a neutering team and would like to be included in this directory? Get in touch with us.
Thank you to all municipalities that took the time
105 analysed responses from eight regions of Romania show where stray dogs are an issue, where structures are missing and where municipalities are ready to change something.