In the late-night streets of North Point, a wild boar forages with its piglets beside a garbage station, only for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) personnel to arrive hours later to capture it for “humane disposal.” This scene played out frequently in Hong Kong from late 2021 to early 2022, sparking profound debates about the relationship between humans and wildlife.

In November 2021, the AFCD announced a shift in its wild boar management strategy, implementing “regular capture and humane disposal” for wild boars in urban areas. This policy immediately sparked significant controversy. Data showed that over 1,200 reports of wild boar disturbances were received in 2021, nearly tripling from five years prior.

However, can merely relying on culling truly solve the root of the problem? Increasing evidence and international experience indicate that Hong Kong urgently needs a paradigm shift from “confrontational management” to “scientific coexistence.”

• Policy Shift: From Disturbance Management to Complete Culling
  
  Hong Kong’s management strategy for wild boars experienced a dramatic shift at the end of 2021. Previously, the AFCD primarily employed a “disturbance management” approach, capturing only specific nuisance individuals upon receiving complaints and relocating them to remote areas. However, with incidents of wild boars entering urban areas becoming more frequent, the government deemed this approach ineffective.
  
  The new policy marks a fundamental change in management philosophy: transitioning from addressing “problem individuals” to proactively reducing the overall population of wild boars in urban areas. The AFCD explained that this move was based on public safety considerations, given the increase in wild boar attacks. According to their data, incidents of injuries caused by wild boars rose from seven in 2018 to 20 in 2021.
  
  Nevertheless, the policy faced immediate scrutiny upon its announcement. Animal welfare groups argued that culling contradicts the purpose of protecting wildlife; experts with scientific backgrounds questioned whether culling could effectively control urban wild boar populations in the long term; and many citizens found large- scale culling emotionally difficult to accept, deeming it too cruel.
  
  
• Scientific Concerns: Why Culling Is Not a Solution
  
  From the perspective of wildlife management, relying solely on culling to control urban wildlife populations has several fundamental flaws.
  
  First, it creates a “vacuum effect.” When a portion of the animals in a given area is removed, individuals from surrounding areas will quickly fill the ecological niche since urban environments provide stable and ample food resources (primarily garbage and intentional feeding). This means that culling efforts must be ongoing, costly, and ultimately have fleeting effects.
  
  Second, targeted culling can disrupt the social structure of the animals. For instance, in the case of wild boars, removing experienced adult individuals may lead younger individuals to display more unpredictable behaviors due to a lack of social constraints, thereby potentially increasing human-wildlife conflicts.
  
  International studies in wildlife management have repeatedly proven that if the fundamental factors attracting animals into urban areas—such as food sources and habitat destruction—are not simultaneously addressed, any measures relying primarily on animal removal will yield only short-lived and limited outcomes. Hong Kong exemplifies this situation: urban development has encroached on the natural habitats of wild boars, while poorly managed waste and citizens’ feeding practices strongly incentivize their entry into the city.
  
• International Perspectives: Successful Coexistence Management Practices
  
  Facing similar challenges with urban wildlife, several international metropolitan areas have developed more complex, scientific, and humane management strategies.
  
  Singapore’s comprehensive management model is particularly noteworthy. This highly urbanized nation also contends with issues related to wild boars and other animal disturbances, but its management strategies extend far beyond culling. The National Parks Board of Singapore implements a holistic approach: strict enforcement with hefty fines for those feeding wildlife; a comprehensive upgrade of garbage bins and collection systems to animal-proof designs; physical barriers to guide animals away from communities; and non-lethal population management (such as contraception) only when necessary.
  
  In certain Japanese cities, management of monkey populations showcases the integration of technological innovation and community alerts. They train professional “monkey patrol teams” to monitor monkey movements using drones and send smartphone alerts to residents when they approach urban areas. Simultaneously, they create “ecological buffer zones,” planting fruit trees preferred by monkeys but not cultivated by farmers to draw animals away from communities.
  
  The UK’s approach to managing urban foxes highlights the core role of public education. By conducting long-term and widespread educational campaigns, citizens learn how to coexist safely with wildlife (e.g., securing garbage bags and not leaving pet food in gardens), significantly reducing conflict reports instead of attempting to eliminate these animals.
  
  The common thread among these successful cases is the recognition that urban wildlife issues are essentially problems caused by human activities; thus, solutions must target human behavior and the urban environment rather than solely focusing on the animals themselves.
  
  
• The Hong Kong Path: Building a Management Framework That Balances Science and Humanity
  
  Based on the actual conditions in Hong Kong and international experiences, we propose a comprehensive four-pronged management strategy to replace the current over- reliance on culling:
  
  • Source Control: Cutting Off Urban Food Incentives
    
    • Upgrade waste management systems: Replace garbage bins with animal-proof designs in all areas frequented by wild boars and ensure that garbage station doors are kept closed.
    • Strictly enforce feeding prohibitions: Significantly increase fines for illegal feeding of wildlife and enhance patrolling and enforcement efforts. In 2021, only about 20 related convictions were made, indicating a lack of deterrence.
    • Public awareness education: Launch a city-wide campaign to inform the public about the legal consequences of feeding wild boars and the long- term harms to both animals and communities.
      
  • Habitat Management: Restoring Buffer Zones
    
    • Establish “ecological buffer zones” at the interfaces of urban areas and rural parks, planting native plants preferred by wild boars that have minimal impact on communities, providing natural food sources.
    • Review urban development plans to avoid further encroachment and fragmentation of wild boar habitats, particularly by earmarking ecological corridors in new development areas.
      
  • Non-Lethal Population Management: Pilot Contraception Programs
    
    • Drawing on successful overseas experiences, initiate a pilot contraception vaccination program for wild boars. Such vaccines can be administered via dart guns to effectively suppress birth rates, gradually and humanely controlling population growth at its source.
    • This measure requires collaboration with university research institutions for scientific monitoring and effectiveness evaluation.
      
  • Community Alert and Response Systems
    
    • Create a “wildlife activity hotspot” map and alert system, providing real- time information to residents through a mobile app.
    • Set up a 24-hour wildlife consultation hotline to offer professional advice and response guidance, rather than solely responding to complaints with capture and culling.
    • Train community liaisons to help residents take preventive measures and manage incidental wildlife encounters.

In 2022, Hong Kong stands at a crossroads in urban wildlife management policy. We must acknowledge that ongoing culling actions are not only morally and animal welfare-concerning but also, in the long run, a costly and ineffective management approach.

The real solution lies in recognizing that wildlife is a part of the urban ecosystem and addressing the management of human behavior and urban environments with scientific rigor, patience, and innovation. This will require inter-departmental collaboration, professional expertise, community participation, and ongoing public education.

Moving from confrontation to coexistence is not only an act of kindness towards wildlife but also a test of the ecological wisdom of this city, Hong Kong. As we learn to share this urban space with our wildlife neighbors, we build not just a safer community but also a more ecologically aware and sustainable future for Hong Kong.