In Hong Kong, a highly urbanized international metropolis, the issue of stray animals reflects profound contradictions between societal views on animal welfare and public management policies. For a long time, the government’s mainstream management policy for stray dogs has relied essentially on the “capture-euthanasia” method, which is considered outdated and cruel by international animal welfare organizations. This policy is not only ethically controversial but its long-term “effectiveness” in controlling population numbers is increasingly questioned by science. The Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals believes it is time to conduct a thorough scientific evaluation of the current policy and seriously explore the feasibility of a humane management alternative focused on “trap-neuter-return” (TNR). This would allow for the development of a more compassionate, scientific, and sustainable animal management strategy.

The Ineffectiveness and Ethical Dilemma of the Current “Capture-Euthanasia” Policy

The policy of humane destruction executed by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department relies on removing individuals to directly reduce street populations. However, extensive international ecological research shows that this approach is often merely “a temporary fix.” When dogs and cats are removed from an area, the resulting vacuum of food and habitat resources quickly attracts animals from elsewhere, or perhaps surviving individuals increase their reproduction rates due to lower population density, leading to a rapid rebound in numbers. This creates a cruel and ineffective cycle: continuous capture and euthanasia without addressing the root of the problem. More fundamentally, this policy regards stray animals merely as “nuisances,” completely ignoring their feelings and welfare as living beings, which contradicts the growing societal awareness of animal protection. Each instance of capture and euthanasia not only ends a life but also leaves negative psychological impacts on community residents, particularly children, who witness these processes.

“Trap-Neuter-Return” (TNR) as a Scientific and Humane Alternative

In contrast, the TNR program represents a paradigm shift. The core steps of TNR involve: humanely trapping stray animals in a specific area, having veterinarians perform sterilization surgery, vaccinate, and apply simple markings (like clipping a corner of an ear), then returning them to their original habitat after recovery, where volunteers or the community can provide ongoing monitoring and care. This program is recognized by international authoritative bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO). The scientific principle behind TNR is that sterilization fundamentally halts reproduction, allowing the population to decline naturally and steadily over time. Sterilized animals exhibit diminished territorial behavior, reducing noise and injuries from mating fights, as well as aggression levels. Concurrently, vaccination improves the health of the animal population and lowers the risk of zoonotic diseases like rabies. Most importantly, TNR acknowledges the right of these animals to exist, allowing them to live out their lives in familiar environments, reflecting societal compassion.

The Feasibility of TNR in Hong Kong: Legal Spaces and Practical Foundations

It is important to emphasize that there are no insurmountable legal obstacles to implementing a TNR program in Hong Kong. According to current law, as long as the returned animals do not pose an evident and immediate danger and the local community does not strongly oppose it, there is operational leeway for such actions. In fact, various animal welfare groups and concerned citizens have conducted small-scale, spontaneous TNR practices in specific areas over the years, accumulating valuable local experience. These pioneering cases demonstrate that with the understanding and cooperation of local residents, along with support from veterinary teams, TNR can be practically implemented. However, these fragmented efforts lack policy recognition, systematic coordination, and resource investment at the government level, making it difficult to scale up and create a long-term mechanism. The key lies in whether the government can change its mindset from a “euthanasia-centric” approach to a “neuter-first” policy, officially recognizing TNR as one of the animal management options.

Policy Optimization Recommendations: Moving Towards a Humane Management Model Based on Neutering

To this end, the Research Department of the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals proposes the following four specific recommendations to promote a scientific, humane, and sustainable stray animal management policy in Hong Kong:

• The government should immediately commission an independent academic institution to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the long-term cost- effectiveness of the current “capture-euthanasia” policy and simultaneously select representative communities in Hong Kong to launch a multi-year “government-community cooperation” TNR pilot program. The pilot program must establish clear scientific monitoring indicators, including changes in population numbers, reproduction rates, outbreaks of zoonotic diseases, changes in community complaint numbers, and program costs, to objectively compare the effectiveness of the two models.
  
• Revise public resource allocation by establishing a “Stray Animal Neutering Fund.” The government should significantly reduce the budget for euthanasia and redirect resources into supporting a citywide stray animal neutering program. This fund can be used to subsidize qualified animal welfare organizations or community groups to provide free or low-cost neutering procedures and basic vaccinations for stray animals and pets owned by low- income families, reducing opportunities for animal abandonment and breeding at the source.
  
• Establish cross-departmental collaboration and community involvement mechanisms. Stray animal management should not only be the responsibility of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department in terms of “removal” but should also involve the Food and Health Bureau (public health), the Home Affairs Department (community relations), and even the Education Bureau (life education). The government should take the lead in forming a working group comprising community leaders, animal welfare groups, veterinary representatives, and government departments to collaboratively develop TNR and community animal care plans suitable for local conditions, with public education aimed at resolving misunderstandings and promoting a culture of “responsible pet ownership” and “community inclusion.”
  
• Enhance public education to deeply embed the concept of “neutering and responsibility” in the community. The government needs to launch a large-scale public education campaign clearly conveying the scientific information that “neutering is the only effective and humane method of population control,” dispelling the traditional myth that “neutering is inhumane.” Additionally, illegal abandonment practices should be severely penalized, and initiatives promoting “adoption instead of purchase” should be promoted to address the root of the problem from multiple angles.
  

Conclusion: Choosing a More Compassionate and Wise Future

The way we treat stray animals serves as a measure of a society’s level of civilization. Continuous reliance on euthanasia will only lead us deeper into a moral and practical deadlock. TNR is not neglecting animals; it is a scientific and humane solution that requires more efficient management, more detailed community collaboration, and long- term commitment. It calls for us to see animals as part of community issues rather than mere nuisances. Hong Kong fully has the conditions and capacity to draw on international successful experiences, combining them with local realities to create a model for humane management of stray animals in an Asian metropolis. We urge the SAR government to demonstrate political will, while the public provides understanding and support, to choose a better and more compassionate future for these voiceless lives and our shared community environment.