The management of stray dogs in Hong Kong has long been entangled in a profound contradiction between a singular “Catch and Dispose” model and the growing societal demand for animal welfare. According to data from the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, while the total number of captured stray cats and dogs has decreased, tens of thousands of animals are still humanely disposed of each year. This situation not only saddens animal welfare advocates but also fails to fundamentally control the community animal population. At the same time, the internationally recognized and practiced “Trap-Neuter-Return” (TNR) program, which combines scientific approaches with humane principles, faces severe challenges in implementation, particularly in dog management. The research department of the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals believes that the core of this predicament lies not in the technical feasibility but in the dual failure of the current legal framework and community cooperation mechanisms. To optimize policy, we must face and systematically dismantle these structural barriers.

• The Dilemma of the Current Management Model and the Scientific and Humane Value of TNR
  
  A management policy reliant on euthanasia is essentially a reactive and outdated “end- of-line” approach. It ignores the fundamental rules of animal population ecology: when animals are removed from an area, the resulting “vacuum effect” quickly attracts new individuals or stimulates an increase in reproduction, leading to a continuous cycle of issues. This not only wastes significant public funds but also continually challenges the moral thresholds of society. In contrast, the “Trap-Neuter-Return” program aims to halt reproduction at the source by sterilizing animals, thus stabilizing and naturally reducing the population of dogs adapted to specific areas. Post-neutering, the occurrence of disruptive behaviors such as roaming, fighting, and barking significantly decreases, benefiting community peace. Simultaneously, the vaccination component of the program can enhance collective health levels and lower public health risks. In short, TNR shifts the management focus from “eliminating individuals” to “managing populations,” pursuing long-term, stable, and humane community ecological balance.
  
• Core Legal Barriers to the Implementation of TNR for Dogs in Hong Kong
  
  Despite the clear benefits of TNR backed by international experience, it faces fundamental challenges within Hong Kong’s legal environment. The primary barrier arises from the strict regulatory framework established by the Rabies Ordinance (Chapter 421) and its subsidiary legislation. This ordinance has clear and mandatory provisions for the registration, licensing, microchipping, and apprehension of unregulated dogs to prevent rabies. Under this legal framework, animal welfare organizations or community volunteers who return neutered dogs to public spaces may be seen as “allowing animals to roam” or even misinterpreted as “abandoning” them, placing well-intentioned actors at legal risk and exposed to prosecution threats.
  
  Furthermore, there exists a cognitive and responsibility gap between enforcement and policy innovation among relevant departments. The statutory responsibilities for protecting public health and disease control lead authorities to adopt a highly cautious, even conservative, stance towards any proposals that might be viewed as “relaxing regulations.” This “better safe than sorry” administrative mindset directly conflicts with the “precise intervention based on risk management” concept required by TNR. The rigid interpretation of legal texts, coupled with administrative inertia, creates a critical bottleneck preventing TNR from achieving official endorsement or securing stable resources for large-scale pilot projects.
  
• The Lack of Community Collaborative Governance and Coordination Issues
  
  Beyond legal barriers, successful TNR programs heavily rely on effective community collaborative governance, which is another weakness of Hong Kong’s current model. TNR is not something that a single department or organization can accomplish independently; it necessitates horizontal cooperation among departments such as the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, the Housing Department, and the Home Affairs Department, along with vertical partnerships with district councils, local organizations, animal welfare groups, veterinary professionals, and community residents.
  
  However, the reality is a lack of a strong coordinating platform and a clear framework for delineating responsibilities. Past experiences with local consultations have shown significant differences in attitudes and priorities regarding stray animal issues among districts, leading to fragmented policy promotion. Tensions often arise within communities between residents’ fears or aversions toward stray animals and the goodwill of compassionate feeders. Without effective community communication and education, TNR programs are likely to spark new conflicts at the execution level. Additionally, without a comprehensive follow-up monitoring, feeding management, and adoption support mechanisms, neutered and returned dogs may give rise to new community management problems. This disjointed, uncoordinated state makes any large-scale, systematic TNR initiatives difficult to initiate and sustain.
  
• Policy Optimization Recommendations: Constructing a Dual-Track Framework of Legal Exemptions and Community Co-Governance
  
  To break the deadlock, the research department of the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals proposes the following concrete recommendations aimed at creating legal space for TNR practice and developing operational governance models:
  
  1. Establish a Legal Exemption Mechanism for the “Community Animal Management Pilot Scheme.”
  The government should leverage the existing legal exemption powers or enact short-term provisional regulations that, under strict conditions (e.g., in designated areas, conducted by approved organizations, with dogs neutered and vaccinated with microchips indicating their TNR status), provide clear legal exemptions for participating dogs and organizations in officially recognized pilot schemes. This initiative aims to establish a “policy laboratory” to empirically validate management effectiveness and provide a foundation for future legislative amendments.
  
  2. Form a Cross-Departmental, Cross-Sector “Community Animal Management Collaborative Committee.”
  In pilot areas, a permanent collaborative platform should be established, led by the district civil affairs officer or heads of relevant departments. Committee members must include representatives from all relevant government departments, district councilors, animal welfare organizations, veterinary professionals, and community resident representatives. Their responsibilities would include jointly formulating the execution plan for TNR in that area, monitoring progress, addressing complaints and disputes, and coordinating resource allocation to ensure the legality, transparency, and community acceptance of management actions.
  
  3. Promote a Registration and Training System for “Volunteer Community Animal Caregivers.”
  To regulate and support compassionate feeders and caregivers within communities, a voluntary registration system should be established. Registered caregivers must undergo basic training covering animal behavior knowledge, responsible feeding guidelines (such as maintaining environmental hygiene), basic health observations, and alignment with TNR plans. Registered caregivers should receive identification badges, and their feeding actions within the framework of the plan should be recognized and coordinated by relevant departments, transforming individual goodwill into organized and manageable community care efforts.
  
  4. Conduct Comprehensive Public Education and Data Transparency.
  The government should lead public education campaigns to clearly explain the scientific principles of TNR, distinguish it from mere feeding, and outline how the entire community can cooperate and benefit. Additionally, all key data from the pilot programs, including the number of sterilizations, changes in population numbers, fluctuations in community complaints, and cost analyses, must be regularly released to the public. Through transparent and scientific communication, trust can be built with citizens, alleviating public concerns.

Conclusion: Driving Institutional Innovation with Courage and Wisdom

The issue of stray animals tests the governance wisdom and civil temperament of a city. Clinging to outdated models will only lead us deeper into ineffective cycles and moral controversies. The legal and coordination challenges faced in implementing TNR reveal Hong Kong’s insufficient institutional flexibility and collaborative governance capacity when addressing complex societal issues. We call on the HKSAR government to demonstrate political responsibility by taking a pragmatic approach toward institutional innovation, proactively dismantling legal shackles, and constructing a bridge for community co-governance. Only by providing space through legal exemptions, integrating resources through collaborative platforms, and fostering consensus through public education can we find a true way forward for stray dogs in Hong Kong, and for ourselves. This is not merely an optimization of animal policies but an important enhancement of modern urban governance capabilities.