- Introduction
Between 2025 and the first half of 2026, Hong Kong and Taiwan each experienced significant developments and reflections in the field of animal welfare policy. In Hong Kong, the Wild Animals Protection (Amendment) Ordinance 2024 has been in effect for over a year and a half; initial results have been seen in enforcing the feral pigeon feeding ban, but controversies over the humaneness of wild boar management, the long delay in revising the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, and the animal resettlement crisis arising from Northern Metropolis development continue to attract public concern. In Taiwan, years after the implementation of the zero-culling policy for stray animals, problems of shelter overcrowding and human-dog conflicts have become increasingly acute, the direction of amendments to the Animal Protection Act remains controversial, and the Wildlife Conservation Act has also been revised.
These two economies face similar tensions between urban development and animal welfare, and both bear the weight of rising public expectations for animal rights. Yet, shaped by their own historical contexts, legal traditions and governance philosophies, they have followed different policy paths. This policy research journal aims to compare the similarities and differences in animal welfare policies between Hong Kong and Taiwan, analyse the structural differences in their policy frameworks, and provide references for future animal policy reform in Hong Kong. - Current Situation and Challenges of Animal Welfare Policy in Hong Kong
Hong Kong’s animal welfare legal framework mainly consists of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance, the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance, and the Animals (Control of Experiments) Ordinance. However, this framework falls short when measured against modern animal welfare concepts.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance was enacted nearly a century ago, 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. The government first proposed amendments in 2019, aiming to increase penalties and introduce a duty of care, but as of the first half of 2026, the bill has still not been formally submitted to the Legislative Council for deliberation. The Liberal Party has pointed out that Hong Kong’s penalty levels are significantly lower than those in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Washington, D.C.
In wildlife management, Hong Kong formally implemented the amended ordinance banning the feeding of feral pigeons in August 2024, raising the maximum penalty to a fine of HK$100,000 and one year’s imprisonment, and introducing a fixed penalty mechanism. The wild boar population has fallen from about 1,800 to about 900, and nuisance black spots have significantly decreased. However, the incident in March 2026 at Chuk Yuen North Estate, where a family of eight wild boars was humanely dispatched after being lured with bread, sparked strong public criticism over policy transparency. The same location saw a completely different outcome just ten days later – a family of five was captured but relocated instead. The decision-making criteria – such as certain body size, ability to forage and move independently, and relatively higher potential aggressiveness and risk to public safety – lack quantitative standards and public guidance.
In animal resettlement, the development of the Northern Metropolis has led to large numbers of cats and dogs being abandoned because they cannot accompany their owners into public housing. It is understood that the resettlement of several thousand pets in the Hung Shui Kiu area alone is affected. A farm in Hung Shui Kiu keeping several hundred sheep faced eviction due to land resumption, with the farm operator quoting the authorities as saying the sheep would be humanely dispatched. Hong Kong lacks systematic arrangements for animal resettlement at the planning stage of development, contrasting with Taiwan’s institutionalised efforts in shelter management.
On the positive side, Hong Kong’s 2025 Policy Address introduced a dog-friendly restaurant scheme, with the first round of approvals expected by mid-2026. The AFCD has also begun piloting AI technology to monitor illegal feeding and has upgraded its animal management building facilities. - Current Situation and Challenges of Animal Welfare Policy in Taiwan
Taiwan’s animal welfare legal system is centred on the Animal Protection Act, enacted in 1998 and amended many times since, establishing a relatively comprehensive framework for owner responsibilities and animal protection. The Act explicitly requires owners to provide appropriate, clean, harmless food and sufficient water, as well as a safe, well-ventilated, well-drained living environment. In 2025, the Economics Committee of the Legislative Yuan reviewed multiple draft amendments to the Animal Protection Act, covering source management, end management, and conflict management. However, wildlife protection groups pointed out that only one of thirty-eight proposals clearly focused on the issue of stray dog and cat conflict management, suggesting a significant gap between the overall direction of the amendments and frontline practical needs.
In stray animal management, Taiwan implemented a zero-culling policy in 2017, but in practice this has become zero euthanasia, leading to overcrowded shelters and poor environments, with many stray dogs suffering and dying in shelters due to poor conditions. Some animal protection groups have described this as the emperor’s new clothes – on the surface zero culling, but in reality stray dogs are not at ease. The stray dog population in Taiwan has spiralled out of control, with incidents of stray dogs collectively attacking and killing sika deer in Matou Mountain, and an elderly man in Kaohsiung fatally attacked by a pack of stray dogs. In recent years, the Council of Agriculture has spent more than sixty per cent of its animal protection budget on dealing with stray dogs, yet the problem remains fundamentally unresolved.
In pet trade regulation, Taiwan has implemented a pet classification and grading management system, categorising several hundred species of domestic animals with high public safety risk into three categories: prohibited from keeping, subject to enhanced review, and subject to enhanced owner responsibility. Species such as meerkats, snapping turtles and pythons are included in the special pet management category, requiring owners to register their pets and comply with relevant keeping regulations. This is one of Asia’s more complete pet classification and grading management systems.
In wildlife conservation, Taiwan amended the Wildlife Conservation Act in 2025, comprehensively banning the use of steel traps, explosives and other explosive devices for hunting wild animals, and clearly regulating hunting by indigenous peoples for non-commercial self-use purposes, including a filing system. The Ministry of Agriculture also gave advance notice of a ban on feeding animals in nature reserves, wildlife sanctuaries and natural conservation areas, with violators subject to fines.
In citizen participation, Taiwan’s Public Policy Online Participation Platform provides an important space for discussing animal welfare issues. One proposal called for prohibiting the government or shelters from using blanket euthanasia as a method of stray animal management, allowing euthanasia only for extreme cases where two qualified veterinarians have certified in writing that the animal is suffering from serious illness, serious injury or irreversible pain. Such mechanisms provide institutionalised channels for civil society to participate in animal policy-making. - Comparative Analysis
Hong Kong and Taiwan show several notable structural differences in animal welfare policy.
First, the comprehensiveness and update frequency of legal frameworks. Taiwan’s Animal Protection Act, enacted in 1998, is more modern than Hong Kong’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, which dates from 1935. Moreover, Taiwan continues to amend its legislation, covering areas such as owner responsibilities, pet management, and performing animal regulation. Hong Kong’s legislative revision process has long stagnated, with nearly seven years having passed since amendments were first proposed in 2019 without the bill being formally submitted to the Legislative Council.
Second, the degree of institutionalisation of wildlife trade controls. Taiwan has established a pet classification and grading management system, implementing category-based management for several hundred species, including prohibited keeping lists and special pet registration. Hong Kong currently relies primarily on quarantine controls under the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance and has not yet established a similar species permit list system.
Third, the core strategy for stray animal management. Taiwan’s core policy is zero culling, emphasising sheltering and adoption, but it faces the practical dilemmas of shelter overcrowding and human-dog conflicts. Hong Kong mainly relies on capture followed by humane dispatch combined with adoption through animal welfare organisations, but faces institutional deficiencies in animal resettlement arising from land development. After implementing zero culling, Taiwan has not seen a reduction in the stray dog population, and has even experienced incidents of packs of dogs attacking wild animals and humans. Hong Kong, for its part, faces the crisis of several thousand animals being forced to move or abandoned due to Northern Metropolis development. Both places face different structural challenges in end management.
Fourth, the institutional space for civil society participation in policy-making. Taiwan’s Public Policy Online Participation Platform provides an institutionalised channel for citizen proposals, allowing animal welfare issues to enter policy discussion through this mechanism. Although Hong Kong’s animal welfare organisations continue to voice their concerns, their institutionalised channels for participation in the policy-making process are relatively limited.
Fifth, the stage of development of pet-friendly policies. Hong Kong launched its dog-friendly restaurant scheme in 2025, marking the beginning of pet-friendly policies. Taiwan’s supporting measures for pet-friendly accommodation, transport and dining have developed earlier and are more mature, and Taiwan already has a relatively complete pet registration and microchipping system. - Policy Recommendations
Based on the above comparative analysis, the Foundation makes the following recommendations for animal welfare policy reform in Hong Kong.
First, expedite the revision of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance. Taiwan’s experience of continuously amending its Animal Protection Act shows that animal welfare legislation must keep pace with the times. Hong Kong should draw on Taiwan’s approach to regulating owner responsibilities, introduce a duty of care, increase maximum penalties, strengthen enforcement powers, and, following the Ombudsman’s recommendations, formally submit a draft amendment to the Legislative Council within this year.
Second, establish a species permit list system for wildlife trade. Drawing on Taiwan’s pet classification and grading management system, Hong Kong should study the creation of a positive list or classification management system for the import and keeping of exotic pets, to prevent the invasion of alien species and the risk of zoonotic diseases at source, while also safeguarding animal welfare.
Third, establish transparent decision-making criteria and a graded mechanism for wildlife management. Hong Kong’s lack of transparency in wild boar management decision-making stands in contrast to Taiwan’s institutional design in wildlife conservation. The government should work with academics and animal welfare groups to develop a clear risk assessment framework to ensure consistency and transparency in implementation.
Fourth, develop a comprehensive framework for animal resettlement and conservation in the context of Northern Metropolis development. Drawing on both the experience and the lessons of Taiwan’s shelter management and animal resettlement – including the overcrowding of shelters and the worsening of human-dog conflicts after the zero-culling policy – Hong Kong should incorporate animal resettlement plans at the planning stage, including relaxing pet ownership restrictions in resettlement estates, establishing transitional animal shelters, and funding trap-neuter-return programmes by animal welfare organisations.
Fifth, expand institutionalised channels for civil society participation in animal policy-making. Drawing on the experience of Taiwan’s Public Policy Online Participation Platform, Hong Kong should establish more robust public participation mechanisms, encouraging animal welfare organisations, academic institutions and professional bodies to participate in policy consultations and legislative discussions, and establish regular communication mechanisms.
Sixth, integrate animal welfare education into the formal school curriculum. The experience of both places shows that the root of animal welfare problems lies in insufficient public awareness and a sense of responsibility. 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. - Conclusion
Hong Kong and Taiwan have followed different paths in animal welfare policy. Taiwan has a relatively comprehensive legal framework and institutionalised citizen participation mechanisms, but in the practical implementation of its zero-culling policy faces serious challenges of shelter overcrowding and human-dog conflicts. Hong Kong has achieved certain numerical results in wildlife management, but the long stagnation of legislative revision, the lack of transparency in decision-making criteria, and the institutional contradictions between development and animal resettlement constitute fundamental defects in its policy framework.
From the family of eight wild boars in Chuk Yuen North Estate to the several hundred sheep on a farm in Hung Shui Kiu; from the cats and dogs abandoned in villages in Fanling North to the stray animals suffering in poor shelter conditions in Taiwan – these life predicaments across the strait point to the same core issue: the heart of animal welfare policy is not whether to use lethal means or whether to implement zero culling, but how to make careful decisions that are in the best interests of animals after fully considering all options.
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, illuminated by Taiwan’s experience, that discussion is not only still urgent, but also has richer reference points. 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.