One morning on Lamma Island, a street cat with a clipped ear gracefully walks past the pier and disappears around the corner. At the same time, on a trail in Yuen Long’s Tai Tong, several stray dogs bark at each other over food scraps. Their fates are guided by two distinct management logics, with the latter mired in significant controversies between policy and practice.

Hong Kong’s management of stray animals stands at a critical crossroads. As of 2020, nearly two years have elapsed since the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) concluded its three-year trial program for stray dogs known as “Trap-Neuter-Return” (TNR). The program, initiated in 2015 in Cheung Chau and Tai Tong, aimed to evaluate the method’s effectiveness in controlling the stray dog population and reducing community nuisance. However, an evaluation report submitted to the Legislative Council by independent consultants in 2018 revealed that the trial “failed to achieve the intended effectiveness indicators.” This conclusion stands in stark contrast to the immense success of the “Community Cat Care Program” (CCCP) implemented by the Hong Kong SPCA since 2000—where over 86,000 cats have been neutered and cat euthanasia has decreased by 90%.

This contradiction points to a deeper issue: should Hong Kong continue to follow a vague and generic “stray animal” management policy? Or should it establish a more refined, scientific classification management system based on the differing biological characteristics, social roles, and management realities of cats and dogs?

• A Tale of Two Realities: The Divergence of TNR in Cat and Dog Management
  
  TNR is not a new concept. As early as the late 1990s, the Hong Kong SPCA introduced the idea of TNR to Hong Kong, officially launching the CCCP in August 2000. After nearly two decades of practice, this program has achieved remarkable results: over 2,200 cat colonies have been established, the number of active volunteers exceeds 1,700, the average lifespan of street cats has significantly increased from 2-4 years to 10 years or more, and in some areas, the population of street cats has been stabilized or even eliminated. This proves that for cats, TNR supplemented by community management is an effective and humane long-term population management strategy.
  
  However, applying the same method to stray dogs has faced severe challenges. Although the AFCD’s three-year trial program indicated plans for ongoing monitoring and invited animal welfare organizations to propose new pilot suggestions after 2019, doubts arose from the initial assessment of its ineffectiveness. These differences are rooted in the fundamental distinctions between cats and dogs: domestic cats, even when returned to the wild, have a relatively fixed home range and strong territoriality, making them easier for community volunteers to manage; whereas dogs have larger activity ranges and mobility, rely more on social structures, and are prone to public safety, traffic, and ecological issues when simply returned to their territory.
  
• At the Heart of Controversy: The Logical Dilemmas and Legal Constraints Behind the Failed Evaluations
  
  The ineffectiveness of the stray dog TNR trial program stems from multiple complex factors. From a scientific management perspective, achieving a reduction in local population sizes through neutering requires extremely high (typically over 70%) and sustained neutering rates while simultaneously preventing the influx of new individuals. Achieving this goal poses significant difficulties and costs in Hong Kong’s highly urbanized and open environment, particularly for active dogs.
  
  A more fundamental obstacle arises from existing legal frameworks. According to AFCD documents, the implementation of the TNR program “is incompatible with certain provisions of the current law.” To enforce the trial, the AFCD had to obtain special exemptions for program coordinators and caregivers to comply with the provisions of the Rabies Ordinance (Chapter 421) and the Dogs and Cats Ordinance (Chapter 167). These laws impose strict regulations on dog control and disease prevention (such as rabies vaccination and licensing), leaving stray dogs that exist long-term in the community in a legal gray area, making public health risks and legal liabilities unclear.
  
  This leads to a policy dilemma: based on scientific evidence and animal welfare, TNR seems a viable alternative to reducing inhumane treatment; yet, based on public safety and existing laws, allowing dogs to roam freely in the community appears unacceptable. The government thus finds itself caught between the dualities of “humane” and “regulation.”
  
• Exploring Diverse Strategies: Building a Comprehensive System of Classification Management and Source Control
  
  To break the current impasse, it is essential to abandon a “one-size-fits-all” mindset and instead create a classification-based management system that prioritizes prevention and offers multiple pathways. We propose the following core recommendations:
  
  Establishing a Management Principle of “Separate Strategies for Cats and Dogs” For street cats: Fully recognize and institutionalize TNR as the core management strategy. The government should formally incorporate the successful community cat management models from organizations like the Hong Kong SPCA into public policy frameworks, providing stable funding for neutering, vaccination support, and legal protection, transforming spontaneous acts of goodwill into sustainable public welfare projects.
  
  For stray dogs: Reposition the role of TNR. TNR should no longer be viewed as an independent solution but as part of integrated management measures, primarily applicable to specific, enclosed, and controllable communities (such as outlying islands or closed village clusters), and must closely integrate with strict relocation controls, promotion of adoption, and subsequent behavioral management.
  
  • Creating a Solid Firewall for Source Management
    The effectiveness of all end-of-life management measures ultimately hinges on addressing root problems. A multi-faceted approach is necessary:
    
    • Strengthen Owner Responsibility: Significantly increase penalties for animal abandonment through legislative amendments and establish effective tracing mechanisms.
    • Promote Neutering Awareness: Expand subsidy programs for neutering household pets, particularly dogs, to reduce accidental breeding and abandonment at the source.
    • Strictly Regulate Breeding and Sale: Enhance oversight of pet breeding operations and sales channels to eliminate illegal and irresponsible breeding practices.
      
  • Broadening Humane Outlets for “End-of-Life Management”
    For existing stray animals, particularly dogs, we must provide richer alternatives than mere “return” or “humane euthanasia”:
    
    • Dramatically Increase Adoption Rates: The government should boost funding for animal welfare organizations’ adoption services and work to change public perceptions regarding the adoption of stray dogs.
    • Innovate Animal Shelter Models: Explore establishing regional, well-equipped animal shelters or fostering networks to provide temporary housing and rehabilitation training for animals who are not suitable for immediate adoption but are gentle in nature.
    • Explore “Working Dog” Transformation Programs: Collaborate with relevant organizations to evaluate the feasibility of training suitable stray dogs as community working dogs (such as therapy dogs or companion dogs) to uncover their social value.
      
  • Moving Toward a New Consensus: Data, Collaboration, and Legislative Reforms
    Achieving the aforementioned transformations requires social consensus and institutional collaboration
    
    • Establish a Transparent Data System: Current data regarding stray animal populations, distributions, neutering rates, and adoption figures are fragmented. The government should lead the establishment of a unified and publicly accessible data platform, allowing policy discussions and evaluations to be based on facts rather than speculation.
      
    • Deepen “Government-Civil Society” Collaboration: The AFCD indicated in 2019 that it invites animal welfare organizations to submit new TNR pilot suggestions. This collaboration should evolve into a normalized, institutional partnership that clarifies responsibilities, integrates resources, and allows professional organizations to play leading roles in their areas of expertise.
      
    • Initiate Adaptive Revisions to Relevant Legislation: In the long run, enabling any innovative, humane management models to be implemented legally and smoothly will require reviewing and amending relevant laws such as the Rabies Ordinance and the Dogs and Cats Ordinance. The Legislative Council should undertake forward-looking studies to clear legal barriers for more flexible animal management policies in the future.
      

The stray animal issue in Hong Kong fundamentally remains a human issue—a consequence of abandonment, neglect, and irresponsibility. In 2020, we are not only faced with how to handle lives that have already gone astray, but also with making choices that will lead to a more responsible societal future.

Continuing to spin within old debates or oscillating between the extremes of “total culling” and “simple return” will not help resolve the issue. We must have the courage to acknowledge that different management philosophies may be required for cats and dogs; the wisdom to construct a complete chain from source prevention to end placement; and the determination to push for the necessary updates in laws and systems.

When we see street cats aging peacefully on Lamma Island or find warm homes for stray dogs in Yuen Long, it will not only signify a victory for animal welfare but also mark a mature and firm step for Hong Kong as a civilized society in respecting life, employing scientific governance, and embracing responsibility. This path, while complex, is worth pursuing with full commitment.