In the cracks and edges of Hong Kong’s concrete jungle live a group of silent residents—community stray dogs. Their fate has long been dictated by an outdated management policy centred on “capture and kill.” This policy is not only ethically questionable but has also been proven ineffective internationally over time. In the face of rising public calls for animal welfare, Hong Kong stands at a crossroads in its animal management policy. This article aims to analyze the feasibility of the “Trap-Neuter-Return” (TNR) programme as a humane and scientific alternative, exploring localised and long-term management strategies and presenting a concrete roadmap for policy transformation.

The Dilemma of the “Capture and Kill” Policy: An Ineffective Cycle and Moral Deficit

The current stray dog management policy implemented by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department is essentially a reactive “removal” approach. The underlying logic is to reduce the number of stray dogs by capturing and humanely destroying them. However, numerous ecological studies and international practices have shown that this approach has fundamental flaws. When dogs are removed from an area, the ecological niche and food resources left behind quickly attract dogs from nearby regions or trigger surviving individuals to increase their reproduction rate due to lower population density, leading to rapid rebounds in numbers and creating a cruel cycle that drains public funds without solving the problem.

More critically, this policy simplifies life into “problem numbers” awaiting resolution, completely disregarding animal welfare and conflicting with Hong Kong’s increasingly mature civic moral consciousness. Thousands of healthy dogs are destroyed each year, resulting not only in loss of life but also emotional harm to the staff involved and the informed public. The 2010 review of animal welfare legislation at the University of Hong Kong clearly pointed out that the current laws are fragmented and outdated; our management thinking must also keep pace with the times.

“Trap-Neuter-Return” (TNR): An Internationally Recognised Humane Alternative

In contrast, the “Trap-Neuter-Return” programme represents a paradigm shift from “confrontational removal” to “scientific management.” The standard TNR procedure includes: humanely trapping all stray dogs in the target area, having them neutered by a veterinarian, administering necessary vaccinations (such as for rabies), and marking them (e.g., ear tipping), before returning them to their original habitats, with follow-up monitoring and limited care from volunteers or the community.

The scientific basis of TNR lies in blocking reproduction at the source through sterilisation, allowing the number of dogs in a specific area to decline naturally and steadily over time, eventually leading to population extinction. After sterilisation, the hormonal levels of animals drop, significantly reducing disruptive behaviours such as roaming, fighting, and howling, thereby decreasing community complaints. Simultaneously, vaccinations improve group health levels, reducing public health risks associated with zoonotic diseases. Importantly, TNR acknowledges the right to life for these animals, allowing stable populations that have adapted to the community to age peacefully, embodying the spirit of compassion.

The Practical Foundations and Challenges of TNR in Hong Kong

It is noteworthy that implementing TNR in Hong Kong is not just a theoretical discussion; there is already preliminary practical groundwork. Even before 2011, some local animal welfare groups (such as the Lamma Island Animal Protection Group) had been spontaneously and on a small scale practising TNR for years in the outlying islands and rural areas, observing significant outcomes: the stray cat population in targeted areas was controlled, the number of new kittens sharply decreased, and the overall health of the populations improved. These empirical experiences demonstrate that TNR is entirely feasible at the operational level, given community understanding and cooperation.

However, these grassroots efforts face systemic challenges that inhibit scaling to a territory-wide policy. The largest obstacle is the incompatibility of legal and administrative frameworks. The then-existing “Rabies Ordinance” (Cap. 421) and “Dogs and Cats Ordinance” (Cap. 167) aimed to strictly regulate animal movement to prevent disease, creating potential conflicts with the practice of returning sterilised dogs to the streets. Government departments maintain a conservative stance due to concerns about legal liabilities and public health risks. Furthermore, lacking official coordination and resource investment leads to a scattered, low-coverage plan that cannot achieve the scientifically necessary sterilisation rate of over 70% for effective long-term control. Additionally, misunderstandings among some citizens about stray animals, improper feeding leading to aggregation, and ongoing issues of pet abandonment pose further challenges to the success of TNR.

Policy Optimization Recommendations: Moving Toward a New Management Phase Balancing Science and Humanity To elevate TNR from a grassroots practice to an effective public policy, the Research Department of the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals proposes the following four-phase action plan:

Phase One: Initiate an Officially Led Feasibility Study and Pilot Programme.
The government should immediately allocate funding to commission an independent academic institution to conduct an in-depth, one-year study on the comprehensive impacts of implementing TNR in different types of communities (such as rural areas, new town fringes, and outlying islands). Meanwhile, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department should actively collaborate with experienced animal welfare organisations to launch a three-year “government-community partnership” TNR pilot programme in two to three representative areas with strong community support. The programme must establish clear scientific assessment indicators, including changes in dog populations, reproduction rates, community complaint figures, cost-benefit analysis, and shifts in public attitudes

Phase Two: Create a “Testing Space” for Legal and Administrative Coordination.
To address fundamental legal barriers, the government should consider invoking current ordinance exemption clauses or enacting temporary regulations to provide clear legal exemptions for approved pilot programmes, allowing the sterilisation and return of dogs under strict regulations. This would alleviate legal concerns for enforcement agencies, representing a crucial step toward breaking the policy impasse.

Phase Three: Establish Cross-Departmental Cooperation and Community Co-governance Models.
A dedicated task force should be formed, led by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, together with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (to address hygiene problems arising from waste and feeding), the Housing Department, and the Home Affairs Department (to coordinate public housing and community relations). This task force must include animal welfare groups, veterinary representatives, and local leaders to jointly develop and implement a “Community Animal Management Charter,” integrating TNR, responsible feeding education, strict enforcement against abandonment, and community animal census initiatives into a cohesive governance approach.

Phase Four: Invest in Public Education and Source Reduction.
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 “Sterilisation is a responsibility; abandonment is cruelty.” At the same time, enforcement of “owner responsibility” laws should be strengthened, and the promotion of “adopt, don’t shop” should be vigorously undertaken. Only when the sources of abandonment and indiscriminate breeding are blocked can the effectiveness of TNR as a remedial measure for existing animals be consolidated and highlighted.

Conclusion: Choosing a More Compassionate and Wise Future for the City

How we treat stray animals is a measure of the depth of our society’s civility. Continuing to rely on culling will only leave us trapped in a dual dilemma of moral and practical failure. TNR is not about neglect; it is a scientific and humane solution that demands higher management standards, more nuanced community collaboration, and longer-term commitments. It requires us to view these animals as lives that need management, not as nuisances that need extermination. Hong Kong is fully capable of drawing on international experience and local grassroots wisdom to pioneer a model for 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 the public to choose a more compassionate and sustainable future for these voiceless lives and for our shared home.