Within Hong Kong’s legal statutes resides an ordinance intimately connected to the lives of its citizens yet grounded in an antiquated philosophy—the Dogs and Cats Ordinance (Cap. 167). The origins of this legislation can be traced back to the colonial era in 1893, with the Dogs Bill drafted to control rabies (commonly known as ‘mad dog disease’). Its original legislative intent is deeply imprinted with the mindset of ‘public health crisis management’ from over a century ago, focusing on regulating dogs primarily as potential sources of disease transmission to safeguard human society. However, times have changed. More than a century later, Hong Kong has long eradicated rabies, and societal attitudes towards animals have undergone a profound transformation. Cats and dogs are now widely regarded as family companions and sources of emotional support. This old law, centred on ‘control’ and ‘prevention of nuisance’, has become severely disconnected from the modern societal values of ‘animal welfare’ and ‘respect for life’. The Research Department of The Hong Kong Foundation of the Prevention of Animal Abuse believes that a comprehensive modernisation of the Dogs and Cats Ordinance, reshaping it from a ‘public health management law’ into an ‘animal welfare protection law’, is a crucial and urgent step in optimising Hong Kong’s animal welfare policy.

1. Historical Origins and Contemporary Dilemmas: An Anachronistic ‘Control’ Statute
   
   To understand the necessity for reform, one must examine the ordinance’s roots. The legislative context in 1893 was the severe threat rabies posed to public life. Consequently, the ordinance’s design was imbued from the outset with a spirit of prevention and control, focusing on the ‘danger’ of dogs rather than their ‘welfare’. Despite undergoing amendments—such as the inclusion of cats under its regulation in the 1950s and later the addition of a ban on consuming dogs and cats—its fundamental legislative philosophy has remained unshaken. The numerous provisions concerning licensing, leashing, seizing stray animals, and disposing of unclaimed animals are underpinned by a logic that still treats cats and dogs as ‘objects’ or ‘potential troubles’ requiring strict restraint, with the highest principle being to serve the hygiene and order of the human community.
   
   This outdated philosophy faces multiple dilemmas today. Firstly, it is severely out of sync with societal sentiments. For hundreds of thousands of owners, cats and dogs are family members, yet the law still treats them as chattels requiring registration and management, completely disregarding their relational and emotional value. Secondly, it fails to effectively address modern animal welfare challenges. The ordinance’s stipulations regarding owner responsibilities are vague and weak, emphasising ‘not letting a dog cause a nuisance to others’ rather than ‘how to actively ensure animal welfare’. It offers almost no regulation for welfare issues arising from breeding and trading, such as genetic diseases or overbreeding. Furthermore, its approach to stray animals still focuses on ‘seizure’ and ‘disposal’, lacking clear legal authorisation and support for humane population management methods like ‘Trap-Neuter-Return’ (TNR), leaving policy wavering between ethics and effectiveness.
   
2. Core Transformation: A Paradigm Shift from ‘Negative Control’ to ‘Positive Safeguarding’
   
   The modernisation of the Dogs and Cats Ordinance is not about minor tweaks but a fundamental revolution in legislative paradigm. Its core objective is to shift the law’s focus decisively from ‘managing animals to serve people’ to ‘regulating human behaviour to protect animals’. This means the law’s role would no longer be to restrict animals from a human-centric standpoint, but to stand on the side of animals, constraining and guiding the responsibilities of owners and society.
   
   Specifically, this transformation manifests in three dimensions:

1. Shift in the Subject of Responsibility: The law’s primary regulatory target should shift clearly from ‘cats and dogs’ themselves to their ‘keepers’ (owners, breeders, sellers, foster carers, etc.). They must be assigned a statutory ‘duty of care’, requiring them to take positive, reasonable steps to ensure animals enjoy the internationally recognised ‘Five Freedoms’—freedom from hunger and thirst; discomfort; pain, injury, and disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress.
   
2. Elevation of Legislative Purpose: The law’s ultimate purpose should be elevated from ‘preventing nuisance and controlling disease’ to ‘promoting animal welfare and consolidating harmonious relationships between humans and animals’. This requires provisions not only to prohibit cruelty but also to actively mandate how to provide suitable living environments, social opportunities, veterinary care, and behavioural training.
   
3. Update of Management Strategies: Public management strategies for cat and dog populations (especially strays) should transition from mere ‘removal’ to comprehensive, humane population management centred on ‘neutering, vaccination, education, and adoption’. The law should provide a clear legal basis and resource support for these science-based methods aligned with animal welfare.

3. Policy Reform Proposals: Constructing a Welfare-Oriented *Dogs and Cats Ordinance* for a New Era

To achieve this transformation, we propose the following specific legislative and policy amendments:

First, establish the ‘Keeper’s Duty of Care’ as the legal cornerstone. Introduce a dedicated chapter in the ordinance explicitly stating that all keepers of cats and dogs bear a legal duty to provide, according to the animal’s breed, age, health, and needs: ‘appropriate diet and fresh water’, ‘adequate living space and suitable shelter’, ‘necessary veterinary care’, ‘opportunity to exhibit normal behaviour patterns’, and ‘treatment ensuring freedom from fear and distress’. Breaching this core duty would constitute an offence, independent of whether it amounts to ‘cruelty’.

Second, comprehensively reform the breeding and sale regulatory system. Implement a mandatory ‘Licensing System for Dog and Cat Breeders and Sellers’. Licensees must meet stringent standards regarding facilities, knowledge, and animal welfare, including limits on breeding frequency for breeding animals, requirements for socialisation of juveniles, genetic disease screening, and comprehensive sales record tracing. Unlicensed and ‘backyard’ breeding should be eradicated to reduce, at the source, animal suffering and abandonment caused by overbreeding and genetic defects.

Third, legalise and institutionalise humane community management strategies. Explicitly authorise and regulate ‘Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return (or Rehome)’ as the preferred method for managing stray cat and dog populations within the ordinance. The government should establish a dedicated fund to support qualified animal welfare organisations partnering with communities to implement TNR programmes in specific areas. A ‘Registered Community Animal Carers’ scheme should be created to bring responsible community caregiving under regulated management.

Fourth, strengthen enforcement, education, and supporting measures. Empower enforcement officers with greater authority to inspect premises where a breach of the duty of care is suspected. Concurrently, link ‘Owner Responsibility Education’ courses to dog license renewals and vigorously promote public awareness campaigns for ‘Adoption over Purchase’. Establish a territory-wide cat and dog database, linking electronic records of neutering, vaccination, and transfer with licensing to enhance management efficiency and transparency.

Conclusion: Leading Social Progress Through Legal Innovation

The modernisation of the Dogs and Cats Ordinance is not merely a technical legal task but a profound social civilising project. It tests Hong Kong’s ability to transcend colonial-era governance thinking from over a century ago and to genuinely integrate respect and compassion for life into the legal framework of urban governance. The step of transforming cats and dogs from a controlled ‘it’ to a protected ‘them’ is crucial. We call upon the SAR Government, the Legislative Council, and all sectors of society to seize this historical opportunity and initiate this vital legal reform with courage and foresight. Let the future Dogs and Cats Ordinance be not a historical relic of fear and control, but a charter for animal welfare that embodies compassion, responsibility, and scientific spirit—a charter worthy of Hong Kong’s new era. Only then can we build a truly civilised city that lives in harmony with all life.