On the edges of Hong Kong’s densely populated concrete jungle, a silent conflict plays out daily. Wild boars rummage through garbage in urban areas, and monkeys beg for food from visitors in country parks. These occurrences have shifted from the rare to the commonplace, reflecting the increasingly intense clash between urban expansion and wildlife habitats. In response, calls for “relocation” and “removal” occasionally echo within society, yet as a self-proclaimed civilized international metropolis, Hong Kong requires a more animal welfare-oriented, scientifically grounded, and long-term humanitarian management strategy that aims for harmonious coexistence between humans and wildlife. This is not only essential for animal welfare but is also a litmus test for the sustainable development of the city and the level of social civilization.

• The Severity of the Issue: Escalation from Disturbance to Conflict
  
  The core of Hong Kong’s wildlife management problem lies in the vicious cycle of habitat overlap and food dependency. As rural areas, such as northern New Territories, continue to develop, the natural habitats of wildlife are increasingly eroded and fragmented. Concurrently, human activities—whether through well-meaning feeding or improper waste disposal—provide wildlife with stable and easy food sources, significantly distorting their natural behaviors.
  
  Take monkeys as an example: the past trend of visitors feeding them in places like Kam Shan Country Park has led to a rapid increase in monkey populations over the years and caused them to lose their natural wariness of humans, learning to snatch plastic bags from visitors. Data from the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) shows that monkey disturbance cases remained high at around 400 to 500 annually from 2014 to 2016. Although no attack cases were recorded during that period, the disturbances have persistently impacted the quality of life for citizens.
  
  The wild boar issue highlights even greater safety risks. Wild boars entering urban areas in search of food not only cause property damage but also pose substantial threats to public safety. While the number of wild boar attacks was relatively low in 2014, the underlying problems—food incentives in urban areas and habitat pressure—already existed, laying the groundwork for future escalations of conflict. These animals are not inherently aggressive; their behavior is usually a direct response to human alterations of their environment and food sources.
  
• Current Status and Challenges: The Limitations of Singular Measure
  
  Around 2014, Hong Kong’s wildlife management policies began to take shape through multiple approaches, but the measures lack integration and overly focus on remedial responses.
  
  • Limitations and Effectiveness of Sterilization Programs: Since 2007, the AFCD has implemented contraception and sterilization programs for monkey populations in Kam Shan, Lion Rock, and Chai Wan Country Parks. Data indicates that this initiative has been somewhat effective, with the monkey birth rate declining from around 78% in 2008 to approximately 35% in 2014, and population numbers decreasing over the years. However, this is a long-term investment that yields slow results and only addresses specific areas, failing to rapidly respond to emerging disturbances at urban edges. For wild boars, which have even higher reproductive rates, the challenges of sterilization programs in terms of scale and speed are even greater.
  • Challenges in Feeding Prohibition Enforcement: Under the Wild Animal Protection Ordinance, feeding wildlife in designated prohibited areas can incur fines of up to HKD 10,000. In 2014, the AFCD conducted 797 related patrols and initiated 67 prosecutions, of which 65 were successful. However, the average fine of around HKD 770 has been questioned for its deterrent effect. Enforcement also faces challenges such as difficulties in gathering evidence and limited resources, making it hard to comprehensively curb feeding behaviors.
  • Removal-Oriented Emergency Mindset: When disturbances escalate or pose safety threats, the immediate response is often to capture and relocate the animals, or even to humanely euthanize them. While this can eliminate localized risks quickly, it does not address the root causes. As long as habitat pressure and food incentives remain, new individuals will quickly fill the void, creating a cycle of “treating the symptoms, not the underlying problem.”
    
• The Core of Humanitarian Management Strategy: Prevention First, Science-Based
  
  To break the deadlock, it is essential to shift the management focus from end-of-line remediation to proactive prevention, using ecological science as the planning foundation. A humane wildlife management strategy should aim to restore healthy boundaries between humans and animals, encouraging wildlife to return to natural foraging behaviors rather than relying on human communities.
  
  The three core pillars of this strategy are:
  
  • Eliminating Human Food Incentives: This is the most critical and effective aspect. In addition to strengthening feeding prohibition enforcement, urban management should be addressed—such as fully replacing garbage bins in wildlife hotspots with animal-proof foot-operated bins, properly managing fruit trees around country parks and residential areas (timely harvesting ripe fruits), and rigorously regulating waste disposal.
  • Habitat Management and Ecological Compensation: At the early stages of urban planning, especially in developing new areas, wildlife impact assessments should be conducted. Planning should strive to retain ecological corridors and reduce habitat fragmentation. Additionally, proactive planting of native fruit trees in country parks can provide monkeys and other animals with richer natural food sources, attracting them away from human residences.
  • Public Education and Community Involvement: Successful management heavily relies on public understanding and cooperation. Education content should go beyond simple notices of “Do Not Feed” to explain the long-term harms of feeding wildlife, how to correctly respond when encountering wildlife (such as staying calm, avoiding direct eye contact, and putting away food), and the balance between urban development and wildlife protection.
    
• Policy Recommendations for Hong Kong: A Blueprint for Harmonious Coexistence
  
  Based on the above analysis, we propose the following specific recommendations to the SAR government and all sectors of society to build a comprehensive framework for humane wildlife management:
  
  • Establish a “Wildlife Humanitarian Management Action Blueprint”: The government should take the lead to unite with the AFCD, Planning Department, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, and consult ecologists, animal welfare groups, and community representatives to develop a long-term, territory-wide action blueprint. This blueprint should set clear management goals, phased strategies, and evaluation metrics for different species (such as wild boars and monkeys) and contexts (such as country parks, urban edges, and new development areas).
    
  • Strengthen the Legal and Enforcement Framework:
    
    • Increase Fines and Introduce Fixed Penalty Notices: Review and increase the penalties for illegal feeding under the Wild Animal Protection Ordinance to enhance deterrence. Consider the introduction of fixed penalty notices to allow frontline personnel to address minor violations more efficiently.
    • Expand and Refine Targeted Enforcement: Based on wildlife activity dynamics, scientifically review and expand the scope of designated feeding prohibition areas. Enforcement methods should combine patrols with monitoring technology (like infrared cameras) and community reporting networks to enhance efficiency.
      
  • Expand and Optimize Non-lethal Population Management:
    
    • On a feasible basis, expand the contraception and sterilization programs for monkeys to more populations and institutionalize them to sustainably control growth rates.
    • Actively research and trial contraception techniques for wild boars. Despite greater technical challenges, this should be resourced as a long-term research and application direction to gradually reduce reliance on capture and humane treatment.
      
  • Incorporate Animal Welfare into Urban Planning Legal Processes:
    
    • During the planning stages of new development areas (such as the former Kwu Tung North and Hung Shui Kiu), require compulsory ecological impact assessments and establish specific “Animal Relocation and Habitat Compensation Plans.”
    • Set aside land or resources for establishing animal shelter centers, protecting ecological corridors, or integrating wildlife-proof designs into community facilities (like garbage stations and parks).
      
  • Launch a Territory-wide Public Education Campaign:
    
    • Initiate a cross-departmental, multimedia long-term promotion themed “Wild Animals, Wild Foraging,” providing clear core messages such as “Feeding Equals Harm” and “Proper Waste Management” through school education, community talks, and promotional videos.
      
    • Provide technical support and workshops for property management companies, village representatives, and farmers to teach practical preventive measures, such as installing protective fences and utilizing disturbance-free equipment.

Conclusion

The attitude toward wildlife reflects the baseline of a city’s civilization. Simple measures of eviction or elimination only lead to temporary peace while exacerbating ecological imbalances and potential conflicts. Hong Kong stands at a critical crossroads: we can choose to continue reactive responses, falling into a cycle of endless conflict; or we can choose proactive planning, utilizing scientific, humane, and forward-looking wisdom to carve out a new path for harmonious coexistence between humans and wildlife.

This pathway requires the government to demonstrate decisiveness that transcends short-term political tests, planners to possess the vision to integrate ecology with development, and every citizen to fulfill their duty as responsible neighbors. Only by doing so can we ensure that Hong Kong’s prosperity does not come at the cost of wildlife suffering and ecological diversity, but rather truly build a livable metropolis that is friendly to all forms of life.