In the early hours, the glow of a smartphone illuminates a young face as he browses advertisements for “weekend rentals of Shiba Inu companions” on a local forum. Simultaneously, on another part of the screen, a photo of an unweaned kitten is labeled “premium golden gradient, act fast!” and is about to be shipped to an unknown buyer. In Hong Kong in 2018, the wave of the “sharing economy” is sweeping across various sectors, with “shared pets” emerging as a novel yet controversial concept being trialed on social platforms and by small startups. At the same time, online live animal sales have moved far beyond traditional pet store displays, flourishing on Facebook pages, Instagram shops, and various second-hand trading platforms. These emerging models, marketed under the banners of “experiencing the joys of pet ownership” and “convenient pet purchasing,” are quietly transforming animals into a commodified “product” that can be ordered on-demand, returned, or resold at any time. However, beneath this seemingly innovative and convenient facade, a significant animal welfare black hole and legal regulatory vacuum are forming, posing unprecedented challenges to Hong Kong’s already fragile animal protection system. “Shared pets” and pure online live animal sales touch upon the red line of animal welfare in distinctly different ways. “Shared pets,” or short-term rental services for animals, fundamentally place animals in an extremely unstable and stressful living situation. Animals are treated as “liquid assets,” frequently shifting between different environments and caregivers. This lack of stable belonging and continuous care contravenes the basic psychological needs of animals (especially dogs and cats) for stable homes and fixed attachment figures. Each transfer could introduce transport stress, environmental adjustment anxiety, and negligence risks due to varying levels of caregiver knowledge. Worse still, this lowers the responsibility threshold of pet ownership, potentially encouraging impulsive “experience consumption” rather than a well-considered lifelong commitment. On the other hand, online live animal sales completely “de-physicalize” and “de- transparent” animal transactions. Consumers make purchasing decisions based solely on a few potentially touched-up photos or a short video, without being able to verify the animal’s actual health status, behavioral temperament, and, most critically, the breeding source. This provides perfect cover for illegal and inhumane “backyard breeders.” These hidden breeding operations treat animals as breeding machines, often living in poor conditions, and the offspring produced frequently carry hidden genetic diseases or behavioral problems, all marketed as “family bred” or “home grown” with a warm image, flooding the internet. The core legislation governing animal sales and breeding in Hong Kong, the “Public Health (Animals and Birds) Regulations,” was created before the internet era and is nearly helpless against these new business models. This regulation primarily addresses the licensing conditions for physical animal sales distributors, with its inspection and enforcement logic based on fixed business premises. However, for online sellers operating solely through social media accounts, conducting transactions via private messages, and capable of delivering anywhere from street corners to residential units, the current laws struggle to define whether they fall under the category of “distributors,” making effective tracking, inspection, and enforcement difficult. This has resulted in a significant portion of online transactions operating completely outside of regulation, forming a legal gray area. For unprecedented models like “shared pets,” the law is entirely absent. It is neither traditional pet sales nor fostering, and there are no corresponding regulatory categories in existing laws. Should such services be considered a form of “animal rental”? What qualifications should operators possess? What mandatory requirements should be set for animal welfare standards, handover procedures, and health check cycles? All these questions remain unanswered and lack legal grounding in Hong Kong in 2018. Hong Kong in 2018 is at a time of transformative changes driven by technology in business models. However, the convenience of technology should not come at the expense of life welfare. The rise of “shared pets” and online sales reflects the disconnection between Hong Kong’s animal welfare laws and modern society’s realities. We urge the government, Legislative Council members, and all sectors of society to recognize this rapidly expanding regulatory gap. Laws must keep pace with the times to truly protect those who cannot speak for themselves. Timely repair of the legal framework is not only about filling gaps but also demonstrates to society that in Hong Kong, the welfare and dignity of animals will not be discounted due to the digitalization of trading forms nor ignored because of the packaging of commercial concepts. This is the bottom line we must uphold as a civilized society.

In the high-efficiency, high-pressure city of Hong Kong, can there be another warm possibility beyond medication and dialogue for therapy? Imagine a child with autism speaking for the first time in the quiet company of a therapy dog; an elderly person relaxing as they gently stroke a rabbit’s soft fur. This is not a sci-fi scenario but rather the global rise of “animal-assisted interventions.” However, in Hong Kong in 2013, this promising professional field was still in a stage of sporadic attempts and lacked standards. We have isolated beautiful stories, but have yet to establish a system that ensures animal welfare, professional efficacy, and service safety. Incorporating animal- assisted interventions into Hong Kong’s formal social welfare, education, and healthcare systems, and formulating “Hong Kong standards,” is a win-win strategy to expand the value of animals and deepen humanistic care. The underlying scientific rationale is that positive interactions with animals can effectively reduce human blood pressure and cortisol (stress hormone) levels, while stimulating the release of oxytocin (related to trust and pleasure). For those facing emotional distress, social barriers, or cognitive decline, the non-judgmental acceptance that animals provide often becomes the first step to opening communication and facilitating change. This amateurism, while filled with enthusiasm, limits acceptance within mainstream medical and educational systems and fails to ensure long-term quality for this service and the welfare of the animals involved. These standardization measures allow animal-assisted interventions to shed the impression of being mere “feel-good shows,” transforming into serious professional auxiliary services that are recognized by insurance companies and purchased by medical institutions. They clearly distinguish between “trained therapy animals” and “family pets.” Conclusion Pursuing the standardization of animal-assisted interventions is not about stifling grassroots love but elevating that love into a trusted, replicable, and accountable professional force. This will not only open a new door to healing for countless citizens in need but also profoundly reflect the role of animals in society, expanding from “protected beings” to “contributors.” Hong Kong in 2013 stands at this crossroads full of potential. We call upon the government, academia, and social welfare sectors to collaborate, laying a solid foundation for this initiative based on science and compassion. Let Hong Kong, in its pursuit of economic efficiency, also develop this gentle and professional social capital deeply connected to life.

Public perception of stray animals on the streets is undergoing a profound transformation from “disruption and disdain” to “sympathy and concern.” In the past, the government’s primary response to stray dog issues was “capture, shelter, and humane treatment.” However, with the awakening of societal awareness regarding animal welfare, this approach, focused on ending life, has not only cost the public purse a significant amount each year but also increasingly faced ethical and long-term effectiveness doubts from the public. Against this backdrop, a non-lethal management strategy centered on “catching, neutering, and returning” is viewed as a more humane and modern alternative. In 2015, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department launched a three-year TNR trial program in Cheung Chau and Yuen Long’s Tai Tong, aiming to scientifically assess the method’s effectiveness in controlling stray dog populations and reducing community disturbances. Now that the three-year trial has ended, an independent consultant’s evaluation report was submitted to the Legislative Council in May 2018. Unfortunately, the report indicates that the program “failed to meet its original performance indicators.” This conclusion comes as a cold shower to animal welfare organizations and citizens who have long advocated for TNR. Should we completely deny the value of TNR? The answer is clearly no. On the contrary, this moment is crucial for us to reflect calmly, draw lessons from failure, optimize policies, and seek more effective paths. Understanding the setbacks of this trial is the first step in optimizing future policies. The failure of the plan may stem from a combination of complex factors. First, insufficient or unsustainable neutering coverage presents the biggest challenge to TNR’s success. International research generally indicates that to effectively control an open stray animal population, a high proportion of the animals must be continuously neutered. In semi-closed communities like Tai Tong and Cheung Chau, new unneutered dogs may constantly migrate in or be abandoned. If the neutering rate does not keep up with the influx of new individuals and internal breeding, the population will not decrease. Secondly, there is a contradiction between the unique characteristics of the pilot area and the program’s rigid goals. The core indicator for evaluating the program’s effectiveness is “reducing the number of stray dogs and related complaints.” However, dog behavior is complex, and their activity range may vastly exceed the geographical boundaries set by the pilot. Even if dogs in the area behave more stable and complaints decrease due to neutering, if disturbances from surrounding areas are factored in, the overall data may not reflect local improvements. Additionally, the evaluation period is only three years, which may be insufficient for TNR strategies that allow the population to naturally age and slowly decline through neutering. Furthermore, community support and accompanying measures, which are vital, may have been overlooked. TNR is not a simple neutering procedure; its success heavily depends on ongoing community monitoring, basic care for returned animals (such as designated feeding and simple shelter), and in-depth public education to prevent abandonment and new feeding locations. Without close collaboration with community residents and volunteer organizations, the plan may become merely superficial. Despite the setbacks faced in this trial for dogs, the potential of the TNR concept in other contexts in Hong Kong should not be overlooked. The Cat Colony Care Program implemented by the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a long-term and relatively successful case. This program provides systematic neutering, medical care, and assistance for community stray cats, demonstrating positive achievements in managing specific cat populations. Places like Lamma Island have formed community models of harmonious coexistence between humans and stray cats through collaboration. These successes, contrasting with the setbacks in the dog trial, clearly illustrate that implementation strategies must be adapted to species characteristics. Cats have relatively fixed activity areas, while dogs have wider activity ranges and more complex social structures, indicating that managing dogs requires broader perspectives, more detailed regional divisions, and stronger inter-community coordination. Simultaneously, drawing from overseas experiences, a successful TNR program goes beyond “neutering and returning.” It should be a comprehensive management system that includes “catching, neutering, vaccination, returning, long-term monitoring, and adoption.” Making vaccination a mandatory part can directly enhance public health safety and increase the policy’s persuasiveness. Active adoption efforts, especially for gentle puppies or adult dogs discovered during the capture process, can directly reduce the number of strays and win broader public support for the program. Conclusion In 2018, standing at the endpoint of the TNR trial program’s cycle, we see not a dead end but a crossroads. One path leads back to the outdated and controversial “capture-kill” approach; the other embraces challenges, adopting a scientific spirit and pragmatic attitude to optimize methods, integrate resources, and explore a truly effective stray animal management pathway that respects life and fits Hong Kong’s realities. We urge the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Legislative Council members, and all sectors of society to cherish the valuable data and lessons brought by this trial. Failure is the mother of success, and the key lies in whether we possess the courage and wisdom to learn from failure. Let us collectively promote a more comprehensive, humane, and forward-looking animal welfare policy, not only to manage the number of strays but also to shape a more empathetic and responsible character for our civilized society. This is not only a blessing for animals but also a litmus test for the overall level of civilization in Hong Kong society.

A dog tied to a small balcony, lacking water and shade under the scorching sun, is enduring chronic suffering, yet current laws are powerless to intervene. This is not just a hypothetical scenario, but a daily reality exposing the systemic flaws in Hong Kong’s animal welfare laws. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Chapter 169) was enacted in 1935 and underwent a revision in 2006, but its core logic remains rooted in a “prevention of cruelty” mindset established nearly a century ago. In 2018, Hong Kong stands at a crucial crossroads for reforming animal welfare laws. As social awareness of animal rights has greatly increased, a comprehensive review and revision of this outdated law has become an unavoidable social consensus and policy issue. This reform is about whether Hong Kong can transform from a city that merely meets the baseline of “not abusing” animals into a civilized society that actively ensures “positive welfare” for animals. Since the implementation of the Animal Welfare Act in the UK in 2007, authorities can intervene as soon as they discover that an animal’s “five freedoms” are under threat, even if there is no visible harm. This has proven to be an effective model for preventive law enforcement. 2018 is a historic opportunity for legislative reform in animal welfare in Hong Kong. This is not only a technical legal amendment but also an important upgrade in societal values regarding life. Transitioning from a lagging, passive “anti-cruelty law” to an active, preventive modern animal welfare law, we will witness another advancement in Hong Kong’s rule of law civilization. We can no longer allow the wheels of law to lag behind the lives suffering silently in the corners. The opportunity is at hand, and consensus has formed. Let us work together to urge the Special Administrative Region government and Legislative Council to muster intelligence and courage and initiate this overdue but necessary legal revolution in 2018, establishing a solid and warm welfare protection network for all animals in Hong Kong. This step must be taken, and we will take it.