A closed truck drives past the border, with the cries of puppies in overcrowded cages drowned by the engine’s roar; a rare bird labeled for ornamental use arrives gasping after a long air transport. These scenes represent the dark underbelly of Hong Kong as an international hub for animal trade and movement. As cross-border transportation becomes increasingly convenient, the international and regional movement of companion animals (such as cats and dogs) and ornamental animals (such as birds and reptiles) has become more frequent. This includes both legal commercial trade and personal relocations with pets, as well as hidden illegal smuggling and irresponsible transfers. However, the welfare protections for animals during these cross-border journeys often encounter a jurisdictional vacuum— characterized by poor transport conditions, quarantine procedures focusing only on disease and not welfare, and the lack of regulatory oversight at destinations. As a vital connection between the mainland and the international community, Hong Kong’s existing policies for protecting static animals are already insufficient, and there is an even greater lack of targeted laws and coordination mechanisms for ensuring the welfare of dynamically moving animals. In 2016, it is time to confront and systematically study this issue, to weave an effective protection net for these silent cross-border travelers. Hidden Risks of Cross-Border Movement: A Welfare Crisis Beyond Disease Control Currently, societal and governmental attention to the cross-border movement of animals mainly focuses on disease prevention and biosecurity, which is important, but the welfare of animals is often neglected. For companion animals, inhumane transport methods pose the primary threat. Commercial breeding facilities may transport puppies and kittens in extremely unsuitable environments to cut costs, leading to dehydration, heat stress, and outbreaks of disease. Individuals carrying pets across borders through informal channels may also expose animals to unnecessary risks due to unfamiliar regulations. Furthermore, animals frequently cross borders as gifts or commodities, with little concern for their long-term welfare and adaptability. The situation for ornamental animals is even more severe. To satisfy a niche market, wild individuals may be illegally hunted and smuggled, with a high mortality rate during transport. Even when legally imported, the lengthy supply chain lacks standards for accommodating their specific needs (such as temperature, humidity, and pressure sensitivities). By the time these animals reach pet stores or owners in Hong Kong, they may have already endured a journey filled with suffering. Dual Gaps in Law and Coordination: An Outdated Regulatory Framework Hong Kong’s current animal welfare protection system shows significant shortcomings in addressing cross-border situations. Firstly, the law focuses on outcomes rather than processes. The core legislation, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, mainly punishes cruel acts occurring within Hong Kong. For animals suffering before entry or during transportation, enforcement becomes extremely difficult if the abusive behavior does not fall within Hong Kong’s jurisdiction. The law fails to effectively regulate the responsibilities of importers or transporters throughout the whole process. Secondly, there is a lack of interdepartmental coordination mechanisms. The cross- border movement of animals involves the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (responsible for welfare and quarantine), Customs (responsible for smuggling), the Transport Department, and even the police. Currently, each department has distinct responsibilities but lacks a permanent coordination mechanism centered on animal welfare. This leads to fragmented regulation, responding only reactively when severe abuse or smuggling incidents occur, making proactive oversight impossible. The scale of collaboration mobilized by the Hong Kong Jockey Club in 2016 for cross- border horse racing, involving over 20 government departments, underscores the inadequacy of current management levels for the cross-border movement of companion animals and ornamental animals. Lastly, regional cooperation has yet to be established. The movement of animals between Hong Kong and the mainland is exceedingly frequent, but the two regions differ in animal welfare legal standards and enforcement strength. Currently, there is no established routine reporting, collaborative investigation, or standard matching mechanism specifically for animal welfare protection. While organizations like the Hong Kong Animal Welfare Association engage with mainland groups, this is at an informal level and needs to be elevated to official policy coordination. Building a Protection Network: Four Pillars from Local Legislation to Regional Cooperation To address these challenges, we must create a three-dimensional cross-border animal welfare protection system at the levels of law, policy, enforcement, and education. Conclusion: Ensuring Borders Do Not Become a Terminus for Welfare Animal welfare should not be interrupted or diminished because they cross an artificially drawn border. The vast scale of global live animal trade and existing regulatory loopholes have sounded the alarm. As an advanced international society, Hong Kong has both the responsibility and capability to set an example in this area. In 2016, we called on the SAR government to take a forward-looking approach to address the welfare challenges arising from cross-border animal movement. This is not only about protecting animals but also about maintaining public health, combatting illegal trade, and enhancing the civilization and image of our city. Starting from improving local laws and collaborative mechanisms, and actively seeking regional cooperation, we can pave a more humane and safe path for all animal lives entering and exiting Hong Kong. This work requires determination and wisdom. Let us act immediately to ensure that every animal’s cross-border journey is the beginning of a better life, not a continuation of silent suffering.

Walking into a tastefully decorated pet café, customers happily hold cats for photos and feed them; around the corner, another shop where young people pay to interact and play with a group of pedigreed puppies. Such animal-centric pet-themed businesses have quietly risen as new hotspots for urban consumption in Hong Kong during 2016. They promote a sense of healing and interaction, creating a warm appearance of harmony between humans and animals. However, beneath this facade lies a serious issue that society needs to address: Are the animals, which are the core products and employees of these business models, adequately protected in terms of their welfare? Does the existing legal framework effectively regulate these emerging business formats to prevent exploitation and harm driven by commercial interests? These models share a commonality: they place animals in a continuous cycle of commercial display and high-intensity interaction. For the animals, this could result in a range of welfare risks: Conclusion The civility of a society is reflected in how it treats its most voiceless members. The rise of pet-themed businesses highlights urban inhabitants’ emotional needs for animal companionship, which could foster positive connections between humans and animals. However, without regulation, this demand easily morphs into the covert exploitation of animals. Hong Kong in 2016 stands at this regulatory crossroads. We call upon the SAR government, Legislative Council members, and the general public to acknowledge the welfare challenges posed by this emerging sector. Through timely legislation, clear standards, and strengthened oversight, we can not only protect animals in commercial activities from unnecessary suffering but also guide the entire industry toward healthy development, ensuring that while we meet our emotional needs, we do not violate the core value of treating life with kindness. Only then will the next pet café we visit truly become a space where both animals and humans feel comfortable and safe.

Under the banyan tree in Cheung Chau, a stray dog with a clipped ear quietly lies down, enjoying the kindness of community residents; meanwhile, in a village in Yuen Long Tai Tong, residents are preparing to file complaints with the relevant authorities due to the nighttime howling of stray dogs. These two scenes illustrate the complex realities that Hong Kong’s Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department faced after launching the “stray dog Trap- Neuter-Return (TNR) Pilot Programme” in Cheung Chau and Yuen Long Tai Tong in January 2015, about a year into its implementation. This three-year pilot programme aims to scientifically and humanely assess the effectiveness of the TNR model in controlling the stray dog population and reducing community complaints in specific areas. As we reach 2016, the programme is at its mid-term point, not only an opportunity to review initial data but also a golden window to reflect on its key to success—community communication and involvement.

A skeletal stray dog is chained in a corner of a parking lot without any water nearby. This scene, captured by a citizen and widely circulated online, sparked public outrage. However, when law enforcement arrived, they might ultimately only be able to issue a verbal warning to the owner, due to difficulties in confirming evidence and intent. Such heartbreaking and helpless scenes are everyday reflections of the legal quagmire surrounding animal protection in Hong Kong. Enacted in 1935 and revised in 2006, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance primarily focuses on punishing extreme “cruel acts” and often struggles to address more common issues such as neglect, psychological abuse, or long-term deprivation of welfare. In 2016, the call from society for a comprehensive review and significant amendment of this outdated law has evolved from professional advocacy by animal welfare groups into a strong civic demand that transcends social strata and backgrounds. A grassroots movement for legislative amendment has taken shape, but the legislative procedures and political realities that lie ahead still need to be clearly seen and overcome.