- Feral Pigeon Ban: Enforcement Statistics and Implementation Difficulties
The Wild Animals Protection (Amendment) Ordinance 2024 came into effect on 1 August 2024, extending the prohibition on feeding wild animals to cover feral pigeons, raising the maximum penalty for illegal feeding from a fine of HK$10,000 to HK$100,000 and one year’s imprisonment, and introducing a fixed penalty of HK$5,000. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), together with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department and the Housing Department, established an Inter-departmental Working Group on Enforcement against Illegal Feeding, with about 220 frontline enforcement officers participating in daily inspections.
The initial effectiveness of the amendment can be seen in the decline in the pigeon population. According to a territory-wide survey commissioned by the AFCD covering approximately 140 counting points, the total number of feral pigeons at aggregation points across Hong Kong fell from about 13,500 shortly after the amendment came into effect to about 12,100 in the first quarter of 2025, a reduction of more than 10 per cent.
However, behind the enforcement statistics lie significant implementation bottlenecks. From the effective date of the amendment to February 2026, the relevant departments received a total of 5,620 complaints concerning illegal feeding, conducted 16,227 special inspections and enforcement operations, and carried out 85 joint enforcement actions. A total of 435 fixed penalty notices were issued by various departments, of which 240 were issued for feral pigeons. Yet only 26 cases resulted in successful convictions, with fines ranging from HK$1,000 to HK$10,500, while no successful convictions were recorded for illegal feeding of wild boars.
Media investigations revealed deeper problems. In August 2025, TVB News filmed citizens continuing to feed pigeons in various districts: in a back alley next to Bird Street in Mong Kok, pigeons gathered at noon waiting for their meal; on the waterfront in Kennedy Town, a group of children were feeding pigeons breadcrumbs; on the stairs opposite Central Market, breadcrumbs were scattered on the ground, even though that location had been removed from the blacklist of bird aggregation points in March. A Legislative Councillor questioned: With inspections so frequent but prosecutions so few, I think everyone can imagine that the inspectors might simply leave when they arrive and see no one feeding.
In January 2026, Sing Tao Daily reporters visited Kwai Fong Estate, Sai Yee Street Children’s Playground and the Tsim Sha Tsui Clock Tower, and similarly found citizens and tourists suspected of illegally feeding pigeons. One resident reported that an elderly person known as Pigeon Mommy , after the feeding ban came into effect, had started hiding breadcrumbs in flower planters; another elderly person holding a tin can would quickly scatter grain with a wave of the hand and then walk away briskly, the whole process taking only a few seconds — a highly practised technique. By December 2025, enforcement authorities had issued nearly 400 fixed penalty notices for illegal feeding of wild animals or feral pigeons.
Technological application has become a new direction for enforcement. The AFCD began piloting an AI‑equipped surveillance system in September 2025, initially testing it at feeding hotspots around Hang Hau MTR station. By the fourth quarter of 2025, information collected through the system had enabled the department to issue fixed penalty notices to two persons for illegally feeding feral pigeons. The department is exploring the trial use of AI patrol robots at suitable sites, and continues to review the effectiveness of using technology to combat illegal feeding activities. The Secretary for Environment and Ecology, Tse Chin‑wan, stated that according to the latest data from December 2025, at more than half of the 42 feral pigeon monitoring points, the number of pigeons remained at a low level of fewer than ten.
Yet technology cannot solve every problem. As the Foundation’s 2023 report pointed out, the feeding ban is merely a regulatory measure, not a ultimate solution to the human‑pigeon conflict. The founder of Hong Kong Pigeon and Bird Rescue suggested that international practices should be followed, using scientific management to redirect pigeons — including constructing managed dovecotes, adopting egg replacement, and fixed‑point feeding — in order to effectively reduce pigeon gatherings on the streets and achieve human‑pigeon coexistence. When pigeons suffer from food scarcity, they exhibit behavioural disorders. Relying solely on a feeding ban without positive ecological management will not, in the long run, help establish a sustainable model of human‑wildlife coexistence. - Wild Boar Management: Ethical Controversies of Humane Dispatch and the Need for Policy Review
If the controversy over the pigeon feeding ban focuses on enforcement effectiveness, then wild boar management in 2025–2026 has triggered a deeper debate about the definition of humane and the ethics of wildlife management.
In November 2021, the government abandoned the contraceptive‑and‑relocation programme and resumed the humane dispatch of wild boars entering urban areas. Four years on, the data reveal the staggering scale of the culling order . According to AFCD figures, from November 2021 to March 2026, more than 2,350 wild boars have been humanely dispatched. In the 2025–2026 financial year up to February 2026, a total of 400 capture operations were carried out, capturing 705 wild boars, of which 697 were humanely dispatched — meaning that at least eight captured wild boars escaped humane dispatch this year.
In terms of effectiveness, the wild boar population has fallen from about 1,830 in 2022 to about 900 in 2024, a reduction of nearly 50 per cent. Nuisance black spots have decreased from 42 to 15, a reduction of about 64 per cent. Wild boar injury cases have dropped from 36 in 2022 to 7 in 2024, a reduction of about 80 per cent. Eastern District Councillor Annie Lee Ching-har noted that Mount Parker in Quarry Bay, formerly listed as a wild boar black spot, has received no complaints about wild boar nuisance for nearly two years.
However, the incident that occurred on 17 March 2026 at Chuk Yuen North Estate in Wong Tai Sin pushed the ethical controversy over the culling order to a new peak. AFCD personnel lured a family of eight wild boars with bread, anaesthetised them, and humanely dispatched all of them. The process was broadcast live by the media, sparking heated public debate. Just ten days later, the AFCD captured five more wild boars at the same location — including an adult sow weighing about 90 kilograms and four piglets about one month old — but this time chose to relocate them to a countryside area far from human habitation. The AFCD explained that the wild boars on 17 March had reached a certain size, possessed the ability to forage and move independently, and presented a relatively higher potential aggressiveness and risk to public safety. Yet the difference between the two cases — an entire family of eight killed, a family of five relocated — appeared incomprehensible to the public.
Legislative Councilor Rev. Canon Peter Douglas Koon, representing the Election Committee constituency, said the incident harmed Hong Kong’s international image, and the authorities needed to reflect on whether there were other ways to handle the situation: They even used baiting to lure them in. That should not be the way. Some animal protection advocates questioned why the authorities had still not published the specific targets of the culling order. Legislative Councilors argued that the AFCD should not kill every wild pig it sees, but should manage them according to a risk‑grading system, and urged that such a system be established as a working standard for frontline staff.
Even more shocking was the Hong Kong Wen Wei Po investigation following the incident, which found that a 94‑year‑old man had allegedly been squatting on government land near Chuk Yuen North Estate, using netting and cages to trap young wild boars, and was even suspected of butchering stray dogs and masked palm civets. Police later seized axes, hammers and saws, and arrested the elderly man on suspicion of cruelty to animals. Animal welfare advocate Sharon Kwok Sau-wan pointed out that people had long been illegally feeding wild boars around Tsui Chuk Garden, causing the boars to become dependent on human food, breed too quickly and frequently break into urban areas, ultimately forcing the government to implement culling — the real culprit behind the humane dispatch of the family of eight wild boars was the human act of illegal feeding.
This series of events reveals a profound paradox: the AFCD carries out large‑scale culling in the name of protecting public safety, yet the culling operations themselves have triggered a crisis of public trust in the government’s animal management policies. As the Foundation’s 2023 report noted, Hong Kong’s wildlife management completely avoids the dimension of animal welfare. When a policy framework treats animals as problems to be eliminated rather than as living beings to be managed, no amount of culling will ever achieve true human‑boar coexistence. - Revision of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance: A Decade of Delay and Public Calls for Action
If wildlife management policies reflect an instrumentalist approach to animal welfare in Hong Kong, then the progress of the revision of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance reveals the structural deficiencies of Hong Kong’s animal legal framework.
The current Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) was enacted in 1935, and the last substantial amendment was twenty years ago. The ordinance focuses primarily on whether an animal has suffered cruel treatment, neglecting psychological health, basic care and overall welfare — a significant gap from modern animal welfare concepts. Even upon conviction, the maximum penalty is only a fine of HK$200,000 and three years’ imprisonment. The Liberal Party has argued that the deterrent effect is questionable and that the ordinance fails to convey to the public a message of caring for and protecting animals.
The government first proposed amendments in 2019, aiming to increase penalties for cruelty to animals and to impose a positive duty of care on persons responsible for animals, requiring them to properly care for animal welfare — a departure from the previous situation where inaction did not constitute an offence. It was initially expected that legislation would be completed by 2021 at the earliest, but in 2022 and 2024 the government respectively stated that it would be completed within the year. Yet as 2026 began, the bill had still not been formally submitted to the Legislative Council for deliberation.
In February 2026, the Liberal Party’s Pet Rights Concern Group pointed out that Hong Kong’s penalty levels were significantly lower compared with other jurisdictions. The maximum fines for similar offences in the United Kingdom and New Zealand are equivalent to no less than HK$530,000; in Washington, D.C., the maximum penalty can be five years’ imprisonment. The Liberal Party urged the government to consider amending the ordinance in phases, starting with raising the maximum penalties to strengthen animal protection through deterrent sentencing.
In March 2026, Legislative Councilor Kazaf Tam Chun-kwok, together with members of several animal welfare concern coalitions, met with officials from the Environment and Ecology Bureau and other departments to exchange views on amending the ordinance and promoting animal‑friendly policies. Tam noted that the number of reported animal cruelty cases has been rising year after year, with last year’s figures reaching a six‑year high. He urged the government to speed up the proposed amendments to the current ordinance, strengthen regulation of invasive alien species, and tackle the root causes of stray animal problems.
In April 2026, the Ombudsman’s Office released its report on a direct investigation into the authorities’ work on combating animal cruelty. The AFCD said it accepted the recommendations and would actively follow up. The government has been studying the amendment and will strive to provide an update this year. The AFCD updated its departmental working guidelines in the fourth quarter of last year, covering all procedures for handling reports of suspected animal cruelty.
Former Legislative Councilor Connie Lam So‑wai, from a social work perspective, pointed out that animal cruelty is becoming networked and cross‑border, with some online groups using footage of cruelty as a form of entertainment. She called for the core direction of the amendment to shift from after‑the‑fact punishment to prevention, including the introduction of a duty of care, so that enforcement officers have the power to intervene early when a person fails to provide proper care for an animal in their possession.
Of particular concern is the discovery by education and social welfare sectors that school bullying and animal cruelty — two seemingly parallel phenomena — are showing alarming overlap and a trend towards worsening through online networks. Secondary school students have been found sharing videos of rabbit abuse in messaging app groups to gain likes. Such violent behaviour towards vulnerable lives is seen as a warning sign of deeper social problems.
A law enacted ninety years ago, with no substantive revision for twenty years, and a modern city with more than 400,000 pet animals — the legal vacuum can no longer be ignored. The government must face the fact that the gap between society’s expectations for animal welfare and the protection offered by existing laws is widening. - The Animal Resettlement Crisis Under Northern Metropolis Development
The development of the Northern Metropolis is seen as a major strategic priority for Hong Kong’s future. Yet beneath this grand development blueprint, hundreds of animals are facing forced eviction and abandonment.
In October 2025, Oriental Daily reported that since land resumption for the Northern Metropolis began, large numbers of cats and dogs have been abandoned because they cannot accompany their owners into public housing. Villagers in areas near Ma Sik Road in Fanling North had already moved out by August, but hundreds of stray cats and dogs are facing a survival crisis. These animals used to find food in the villages or were fed by villagers; with the villages now empty, their living environment has changed dramatically. Under current policies, villagers who move into resettlement estates are not allowed to keep pets. When warehouses or car parks close, guard dogs are likewise abandoned. Concerned organizations have discussed with the Civil Engineering and Development Department the establishment of a communication and liaison mechanism, under which animal welfare groups would carry out trap‑neuter‑return in development areas, consultants would accompany rescue groups to set up cat traps, and the government would provide funding or resettlement sites. To date, no positive response has been received.
In December of the same year, a farm in Hung Shui Kiu that keeps more than 600 sheep faced eviction due to land resumption. The farm operator, Zhang Xiaoling, said the Lands Department had notified her to vacate by the end of January 2026, but she had still not found a relocation site. She quoted the department as saying that on the day of resumption, the sheep would be transported by lorry and humanely dispatched , a prospect she finds extremely worrying. The AFCD said it had assisted in contacting animal welfare organizations to explore resettlement arrangements but noted that sheep are difficult to re‑home, and did not rule out the possibility that any sheep that cannot be re‑homed or resettled might ultimately need to be humanely dispatched. The Development Bureau, for its part, said the Lands Department had notified the farm of the expected vacation deadline in 2022, and considered that the farm operator had had ample time to decide.
When meeting with government departments, members of animal welfare concern coalitions urged the authorities to strengthen regulation of resettlement environments for different species and the risks posed by smuggled animals, hoping to improve animals’ living space at source through legislation, enforcement and education. Yet in the absence of a comprehensive animal resettlement policy, the conflict between development and animal welfare will only become more acute as the Northern Metropolis continues to advance. - International Comparison: Singapore’s Integrated Pigeon Management and Crow Culling as Two Sides of the Mirror
Singapore’s wildlife management experience serves as an important mirror for Hong Kong. In June 2024, Singapore’s National Parks Board (NParks) partnered with the Bishan‑Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio and Tanjong Pagar Town Councils to launch a nine‑month pigeon management pilot action plan. The measures included improving food waste management, trapping and humane culling, and stepping up surveillance and enforcement at bird feeding hotspots. After the pilot, the estimated pigeon population within the three town council areas fell by about half. Between October 2024 and March 2025, pigeon‑related feedback received was about 34 per cent lower than the expected average. Based on these significant results, Singapore expanded the plan to three additional constituencies — Jalan Besar, Marsiling‑Yew Tee and Nee Soon — in June 2025.
The similarities and differences between Singapore’s approach and Hong Kong’s are worth careful consideration. Both jurisdictions take enforcement action against illegal bird feeding — during the pilot period, NParks took enforcement action in 50 cases of illegal bird feeding within the three town council areas. However, the key difference is that in Singapore, enforcement is only part of an integrated strategy. Strengthening waste management and food refuse disposal, improving the town environment, understanding the motivations of repeat offenders and redirecting them towards alternative activities such as community gardening — these supporting measures form a more complete solution. In contrast, Hong Kong’s feeding ban remains highly focused on punishment, with noticeably insufficient investment in environmental modification and community intervention.
Yet Singapore is not a perfect mirror either. In February 2026, Singapore announced the resumption of crow culling operations, citing the failure of other control measures and a significant increase in crow attacks. In 2025, nearly 9,000 crow nests were removed across the island — far higher than the figure of just over 600 in 2021. The number of crows caught and removed also surged from over 1,800 in 2021 to more than 13,000 in 2025. The measures taken by NParks include trapping, nest removal, crackdowns on illegal feeding and public education, but in some cases, culling remains necessary. This demonstrates that even in an international metropolis with advanced governance capabilities, certain dilemmas in wildlife management cannot be fully resolved through non‑lethal means alone.
Singapore’s experience offers a dual lesson for Hong Kong. On the one hand, an integrated, cross‑departmental management strategy that combines environmental modification and community participation is indeed more effective than mere enforcement. On the other hand, even the most sophisticated comprehensive strategy cannot entirely avoid the use of lethal measures. The key is that lethal measures should be a last resort after scientific assessment, not the default option when formulating policy. - Policy Recommendations: From Problem Management to Comprehensive Conservation
From the introduction of the amendment bill in 2023, to the enactment of the ordinance in 2024, and then to the implementation and controversies of 2025–2026, Hong Kong’s wildlife and animal welfare policies are undergoing an important but incomplete transformation. The expansion of the feeding ban to cover feral pigeons has broadened the scope of regulation; technology‑assisted enforcement has shown initial results; and wild boar culling has, in numerical terms, reduced nuisance levels. But these are advances at the level of problem management, not genuine comprehensive conservation.
The Foundation believes that to achieve the goal set out in the 2023 report — moving from control to integrated ecological management — Hong Kong needs to take the following actions.
First, establish ecological conservation and animal welfare as the dual core principles of wildlife management. The current Wild Animals Protection Ordinance focuses excessively on prohibiting feeding and punishing behaviour, with no substantive provisions on habitat protection, ecosystem health, or animal welfare standards. Future amendments should clearly state in the first chapter that the legislative purpose includes the protection of wild animals and their habitats.
Second, establish transparent decision‑making criteria and a graded mechanism for wild boar management. The current basis for humane dispatch decisions — such as a certain body size , the ability to forage and move independently , and relatively higher potential aggressiveness and risk to public safety — lacks quantitative standards and public guidance. The government should work with academics and animal welfare groups to develop a clear risk assessment framework and establish appeal or review mechanisms to ensure consistency and transparency in implementation.
Third, develop a comprehensive framework for animal resettlement and conservation in the context of the Northern Metropolis development. The conflict between development and animal welfare should not become a matter of post‑hoc remediation. The government should incorporate animal resettlement plans at the planning stage, including relaxing pet ownership restrictions in resettlement estates, establishing transitional animal shelters, funding trap‑neuter‑return programmes by animal welfare organizations, and providing relocation support for farm animals affected by development.
Fourth, expedite the revision of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance. Proposals were first put forward in 2019, but as of 2026 the legislation has still not been completed. A wait of nearly seven years is an unacceptable delay for animal welfare. The government should formally submit a draft amendment to the Legislative Council within this year, including the introduction of a duty of care, a substantial increase in maximum penalties, a clear prohibition on non‑medically necessary cruel procedures, and enhanced enforcement powers.
Fifth, integrate animal welfare education into the formal school curriculum. At present, the Education Bureau mentions respect for life in its Values Education Curriculum Framework, but animal welfare has never been made a compulsory or independent module. Life education should not remain confined to one‑off talks or exhibitions. The government should work with the education sector to systematically embed animal welfare and ecological conservation knowledge into the primary and secondary school curriculum, fostering respect and empathy for life in the next generation.
Sixth, expand cross‑departmental collaboration mechanisms and incorporate wildlife management as a dimension of urban planning. The current Inter‑departmental Working Group on Enforcement against Illegal Feeding, comprising AFCD, FEHD, LCSD and HD, focuses on enforcement alone. However, the root causes of wildlife management issues — habitat loss, urban design, waste management, public education — require the involvement of a wider range of departments. A standing working group should be established, comprising the Environment and Ecology Bureau, the Development Bureau, the Education Bureau, the Housing Bureau, and others, to coordinate all aspects of wildlife management. - Conclusion
Including feral pigeons in the feeding ban, introducing a fixed penalty mechanism, and increasing maximum penalties are all signs of policy progress. The AFCD’s use of AI‑enabled CCTV to monitor illegal feeding is a positive attempt at technological application. The decline in wild boar numbers and nuisance complaints demonstrates, in a certain sense, the effectiveness of the culling policy. But these achievements should not obscure a deeper truth: Hong Kong’s wildlife management remains trapped at the level of problem management — animals are seen as nuisances to be eliminated, not as fellow beings with whom we share an ecosystem and must coexist.
From the family of eight wild boars in Chuk Yuen North Estate to the 600 sheep on a farm in Hung Shui Kiu; from the eleven cats trapped in cages in a Sham Shui Po back alley to the monkey troops monitored by AI in Kam Shan Country Park; from the animal cruelty law enacted ninety years ago to a revision process that has remained stalled for six years — these are not isolated incidents, but different facets of the same problem: Hong Kong’s legal protection for animals lags far behind society’s expectations for animal welfare.
In 2023, the Foundation called for taking the amendment as an opportunity to initiate an in‑depth discussion on how genuine protection can achieve human‑animal coexistence. In 2026, that discussion remains urgent. We call upon the government, Legislative Council members, and the whole society to seize this moment to push Hong Kong’s animal policies beyond punitive thinking and towards a future of comprehensive conservation and harmonious coexistence between humans and animals. Only then can we have a law capable of meeting the ecological challenges of the future, and transform wild animals from urban problems into the life neighbors with whom we share our city.