A group of citizens observes wild pigeons in a park, and one person throws bread crumbs, subsequently being charged with violating feeding restrictions—this may become a common scene in the future. But does this address the root problem of wildlife disturbance?
In November 2023, the Hong Kong government submitted the “2023 Wild Animal Protection (Amendment) Bill” to the Legislative Council, marking the most significant revision of related legislation in nearly a decade. The bill includes pigeons in the feeding ban and significantly increases the maximum penalty to a fine of HKD 100,000 and imprisonment for one year.
However, this amendment, framed as a measure to “strengthen the management of wildlife disturbances,” fundamentally remains at the level of behavioral control and fails to address deeper issues related to “comprehensive conservation” and ecosystem health.
- Key Points of the Amendment: Expanding the Feeding Ban and Increasing Penalties
Since its enactment in 1976, the current Wild Animal Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) has been amended but primarily targeted feeding restrictions on wild monkeys and certain designated areas. The 2023 amendment bill represents a significant expansion of the regulatory scope.
The core content of the bill includes two points: first, formally listing wild pigeons in the feeding ban. This move aims to address community complaints regarding hygiene issues caused by pigeon gatherings. Second, it drastically increases penalties, raising the maximum fine from HKD 10,000 to HKD 100,000 and introducing a one-year prison term to enhance deterrence.
The government emphasizes that the amendment is intended to “manage wildlife disturbances more effectively and protect public health.” On the surface, targeted regulation of feeding behavior seems to be a quick fix responding directly to public grievances. Supporters argue that this could reduce animals’ dependence on human communities and, in the long run, help control their populations.
However, this “treating the symptom” regulatory logic exposes the fundamental flaw in current wildlife policy: simplistically blaming the complex ecological issues of human-animal conflicts on residents’ feeding behavior and attempting to resolve them through strict laws. - Progressive Analysis: Responding to Social Concerns and Strengthening Enforcement Tools
This amendment does have its progressive aspects. First, it formally acknowledges that disturbances caused by wild pigeons have become an important urban management issue. Pigeons have adapted to urban environments, and their population growth is closely linked to human activities. Including them within regulatory measures is a response to evolving policy needs.
Second, increasing penalties helps to address previous inadequacies in deterrence. In the past, low fines meant minimal costs for habitual feeders, making behavior changes unlikely. By raising the fines and introducing imprisonment, the law theoretically enhances its deterrent effect and provides enforcement agencies with more powerful tools.
Additionally, the amendment bill serves a “public education” function, raising awareness among citizens about the principle of “not feeding wild animals” through legislative processes and social discussions.
However, these advancements are akin to merely putting fresh paint on an old building, failing to address structural issues. To view this as a “major innovation” in wildlife conservation policy would undoubtedly lower our expectations and standards for such policies. - Fundamental Limitations: Avoiding the Core of “Comprehensive Conservation” and Welfare Shortcomings
The most fundamental limitation of the amendment bill is that it completely avoids the essential meaning of “wildlife conservation.” The focus of legal revisions has surprisingly shifted not toward strengthening “protection,” but rather enhancing “control.”
The absence of habitat protection is one of the most severe issues. The underlying reason for wildlife frequently entering human communities in search of food is the ongoing erosion of their natural habitats. The bill makes no mention of how to protect and restore these vital habitats. Without homes, animals are forced to become “disturbers” in human communities.
Furthermore, the bill entirely overlooks the role of “animal welfare” in wildlife management. When animal populations overcrowd or suffer health issues due to feeding, what proactive welfare management measures does the government have? The bill is silent on this, limiting management to mere “prohibitions” and “penalties.”
Moreover, the strategy of “disturbance management” is singular and reactive. Besides prohibiting feeding and imposing fines, the bill offers no innovative or long-term solutions. Such a management model makes true coexistence with wildlife difficult to achieve. - International Lessons: Moving from “Control” to “Integrated Ecological Management”
Other international metropolitan areas have long surpassed the simplistic “feeding ban” mindset, instead adopting more scientific and comprehensive approaches to “integrated ecological management.”
For example, Singapore’s National Parks Board employs a multifaceted strategy in managing pigeons and other wildlife: on one hand, strictly enforcing penalties against feeders; on the other, focusing on altering urban environments to reduce food sources for animals from the outset.
In the UK, managing urban fox populations emphasizes “community participation” and “behavior change.” The government funds community projects to educate residents on how to coexist safely with wildlife.
The commonality in these examples is that they view wildlife as part of the urban ecosystem, with management goals centered around “coexistence” rather than “confrontation.” In contrast, the current amendment in Hong Kong appears narrow in vision and singular in approach. - Policy Recommendations: Toward a True “Wild Animal Protection Ordinance”
We acknowledge the government’s step forward in amending the law, but we cannot settle for this alone. Hong Kong needs a comprehensive review of the Wild Animal Protection Ordinance. Therefore, we propose the following recommendations:
- Establish “ecological conservation” and “animal welfare” as core legislative principles. Future amendments should clearly articulate the legislative objectives as protecting wild animals and their habitats.
- Introduce a “habitat protection and compensation” mechanism. The law should require any development project causing irreversible impacts on critical wildlife habitats to establish an ecological compensation plan.
- Develop a “wildlife welfare management practical code.” The government should collaborate with academia and animal welfare organizations to create standard operating procedures for common wildlife management scenarios.
- Promote a cross-department “integrated management” strategy. Set up a permanent working group composed of departments such as Environment, Food and Health, Planning, and Education to coordinate habitat protection and urban design efforts.
- Invest in public ecological education and community collaboration. Incorporate knowledge of wildlife conservation and coexistence into school curricula and community outreach programs.
Listing pigeons in the feeding ban and increasing penalties may temporarily quell some public discontent about disturbances, but this is far from a victory for wildlife conservation. If our legal framework remains mired in a “human-centered” control mindset, unable to elevate the habitats, welfare, and ecosystem health of animals to the core of our policies, then wildlife in Hong Kong will always be viewed as “problems” in the city rather than “living neighbors” sharing our urban space.
The “2023 Wild Animal Protection (Amendment) Bill” is a starting point, but it should not be the endpoint. We urge the government, Legislative Council members, and all of society to use this opportunity to engage in profound discussions on true “protection” and how to achieve human-animal coexistence. Only in this way can we have laws equipped to face future ecological challenges.