As a highly urbanized international metropolis, Hong Kong’s management policy for community dogs has long been trapped in an inertial cycle of “capture and kill.” This outdated model, reliant on removal and destruction, is not only ethically questionable, but its long-term “effectiveness” in controlling population numbers has been widely proven internationally to be a failure. This approach, led by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), reduces living beings to “problem numbers” to be processed, creating a sharp opposition with Hong Kong society’s increasingly mature awareness of animal welfare. Faced with public calls for reform and advances in animal protection philosophy, the HKSPCA Research Department believes we stand at a historic policy crossroads. It is time to thoroughly examine the fundamental flaws of the current policy and seriously explore humane management alternatives centered on “Trap-Neuter-Return” (TNR) programs, seeking a new path for animal management in Hong Kong that combines science, humanity, and long-term benefit.

• The Dual Failure of the Current “Capture and Kill” Policy: An Ineffective Cycle and a Moral Deficit
  
  The logic of the current policy is based on a simple assumption: that physically removing dogs from the streets will directly reduce their numbers. However, ecological and population dynamics research has long debunked this illusion. When a significant number of dogs are removed from an area, an immediate “vacuum effect” occurs: the void left in food sources, habitat, and other survival resources is quickly filled by dogs moving in from surrounding areas, or the drastically reduced population density stimulates the remaining individuals to increase their reproduction rate, causing a strong rebound in numbers in the short term. This creates a cruel and futile cycle: the government continually spends public funds on capture and killing, yet the community environment sees no fundamental improvement, and animal suffering repeats indefinitely.
  
  A deeper crisis lies in the moral and social costs. The destruction of thousands of healthy animals each year is not only a loss of life but also causes emotional harm to the personnel carrying it out and to an informed public. This policy promotes an erroneous value system that animals are objects to be disposed of at will, rather than lives worthy of respect. It does nothing to foster a sense of public responsibility and instead exacerbates tension between communities and stray animals. The 2010 Review of Animal Welfare Legislation in Hong Kong report from the University of Hong Kong clearly stated that local legislation is fragmented and outdated; our management thinking must also advance with the times, fundamentally rethinking this destruction- based confrontational model.
  
• TNR as a Scientific and Humane Alternative: Theoretical Basis and International Practice
  
  In contrast, the “Trap-Neuter-Return” program represents a paradigm shift from “confrontational removal” to “scientific management.” The standard TNR procedure involves: humanely trapping all stray dogs in a target area, having a veterinarian perform sterilization surgery, administer necessary vaccinations (e.g., for rabies), and apply an identifying mark (such as an ear tip), then returning the recovered animals to their original habitat, with follow-up monitoring and limited care provided by community volunteers.
  
  Its scientific principle lies in blocking reproduction at the source through sterilization, allowing the dog population within a specific area to decline naturally and steadily over time, eventually leading to a population decline. As sterilized animals experience reduced sex hormone levels, nuisance behaviors such as roaming, fighting for mating rights, and howling decrease significantly, thereby reducing community complaints. Furthermore, a stable sterilized population can use its territoriality to effectively resist the invasion of unsterilized dogs from outside, maintaining low numbers in the area in the long term and solving the “vacuum effect” problem. Most importantly, TNR acknowledges these animals’ right to life, allowing individuals already integrated into the community’s ecological balance to live out their natural lives, embodying societal compassion and wisdom.
  
  This approach is not mere theory; it is endorsed by international bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and has been successfully implemented in many cities worldwide. This experience proves TNR is an effective tool for controlling stray animal populations, improving animal health, and fostering community relations.
  
• The Feasibility of TNR in Hong Kong: Local Practical Foundations and Real- World Challenges
  
  It is noteworthy that TNR already has a preliminary practice foundation in Hong Kong. As early as 2000, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong) began implementing its “Cat Colony Care Programme” for stray cats. By that time, it had already sterilized and returned over ten thousand stray cats, systematically tracking them via microchipping, accumulating valuable local operational experience. This long-term practice demonstrates that with community understanding and cooperation, TNR is completely feasible at an operational level and can effectively control the numbers of specific species.
  
  However, systematically extending this successful experience to dog management and elevating it to public policy still faces multiple challenges
  
  1. Incompatible Legal and Administrative Frameworks: The existing Rabies Ordinance and Dogs and Cats Ordinance aim to strictly control animal movement to prevent disease. Their legislative spirit has a potential conflict with the practice of returning sterilized dogs to the community. Government departments, wary of legal liability and public health risks, maintain a conservative attitude, lacking clear regulatory guidance to give TNR the “green light.”
  
  2. Lack of Official Coordination and Resources: Current TNR practices are mostly conducted spontaneously by non-governmental groups, dispersed and lacking coordination. Without government-led comprehensive planning and resource allocation, it is difficult to sustain the sterilization rate above the 70% scientific threshold necessary for long-term, territory-wide control.
  
  3. Insufficient Community Awareness and Supporting Measures: Misunderstandings about stray animals among some citizens, coupled with irresponsible feeding that can exacerbate aggregation, and the ongoing problem of pet abandonment continually inject new individuals into the stray population. Without synchronized public education, strengthened owner responsibility, and promotion of adoption, the effectiveness of TNR will be greatly diminished.
  
• Policy Reform Recommendations: Building a New “Sterilization-Based” Humane Management System
  
  To elevate TNR from a community practice to an effective public policy, the HKSPCA Research Department proposes the following four-stage action plan:
  
  Stage One: Conduct Official Pilot Studies to Persuade the Public and Policymakers with Scientific Data.
  
  The government should immediately allocate funds to commission an independent academic institution to conduct a two-to-three-year “government-community partnership” TNR pilot program in three or four representative communities in Hong Kong (e.g., New Territories villages, new town fringes, outlying islands). The program must set clear scientific evaluation indicators, including sterilization rates, annual changes in dog population numbers, reproduction rates, community complaint figures, animal health indicators (vaccination rates), and cost-benefit analysis. Only based on solid, locally produced data can provide irrefutable evidence for policy transformation.
  
  Stage Two: Create a Legal and Administrative “Testing Space” to Overcome Implementation Barriers.
  
  To address the fundamental legal barriers, the government should consider invoking exemption clauses within existing ordinances or enacting provisional regulations to provide clear legal exemptions for approved pilot programs, allowing sterilization, vaccination, and return under strict supervision. This aims to establish a “policy laboratory,” testing the management model through small-scale pilots and using the results to revise outdated regulatory provisions.
  
  Stage Three: Establish a Cross-Departmental Collaboration and Community Co- governance Model.
  
  Form a dedicated task force led by the AFCD, joined by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (to address sanitation issues), the Housing Department, and the Home Affairs Department (to coordinate community relations). This task force must include animal welfare groups, veterinary representatives, and district leaders to jointly develop and implement a “Community Animal Management Charter.” The charter should integrate TNR, responsible feeding education, stringent enforcement against abandonment, and community animal censuses to form a cohesive governance effort.
  
  Stage Four: Invest in Source Reduction and Public Education.
  
  The ultimate goal of all management measures is “source reduction.” The government must significantly increase resources to launch large-scale public awareness campaigns, with the core message being “Sterilization is a Responsibility, Abandonment is Cruel.”
  
  Concurrently, enforcement of “owner responsibility” should be strengthened, and “Adopt Don’t Shop” should be vigorously promoted. Only when the sources of abandonment and indiscriminate breeding are effectively blocked can the efficacy of TNR as a remedial measure for existing animals be consolidated and sustained.
  
  Conclusion: Choosing a More Compassionate and Wise Future
  
  How a society treats its stray animals is the true measure of its civilizational depth. Persistent reliance on culling will only keep Hong Kong stagnant in a dual dilemma of morality and practicality. TNR is not about abandoning responsibility; it is a scientific and humane solution that demands higher management standards, more nuanced community collaboration, and long-term commitment. It requires us to view these animals as lives to be managed, not as nuisances to be eliminated.
  
  Hong Kong is fully equipped and capable of drawing on international experience and local community wisdom to pioneer a model for the humane management of stray animals in an Asian metropolis. We urge the SAR Government to demonstrate political foresight, be guided by scientific research and compassion, and join hands with citizens to choose a more compassionate and sustainable future for these voiceless lives and for our shared home.