A skinny stray mother cat, trembling with her newborn kittens, is found in a cardboard box in a cold alley of an old district in Hong Kong. Their fate may ultimately lead them to the AFCD’s animal management center—where, according to 2019 data, nearly half of the unclaimed cats and dogs are euthanized.

This scene is emblematic of the plight of stray animals in Hong Kong. In 2021, although the absolute number of stray cats and dogs decreased from 3,771 in 2015 to 1,269 in 2019, a harsh reality persists: approximately 48% of the cats and dogs received by the AFCD’s animal management center in 2019 were still euthanized. Behind these figures lies the struggle of countless lives and the exposure of a significant gap in our policies, which excessively rely on an “capture-neuter-manage” model while neglecting source governance.

The issue of stray animals is not just an animal welfare crisis; it also concerns community health, public safety, and social civility. To address it fundamentally, Hong Kong must decisively shift its policy focus from passive “end-processing” to proactive “source governance.” The scientific practices of “Trap-Neuter-Return” (TNR) and early identification and intervention regarding “animal hoarding” behaviors are two key pillars of this transformation.

• The Dilemmas Behind the Numbers: Bottlenecks and High Costs of Current Policies
  
  To control the stray animal population, the Hong Kong government has implemented measures such as microchipping dogs, public education, and collaboration with animal welfare organizations to promote adoption. While these efforts have seen results—adoption rates rose from 15% in 2015 to 28% in 2019—the proportion of euthanized animals remains unacceptably high, showing that relying solely on adoption cannot fully accommodate the number of stray animals.
  
  The primary management method currently is the AFCD’s animal management center, where stray animals are captured. According to guidelines, unclaimed cats and dogs determined to be unsuitable for adoption (due to poor health or aggressive behavior) may be euthanized just four days after arrival. This model is inherently reactive and late. It deals with “already created strays” but fails to effectively reduce the “sources generating strays.”
  
  Moreover, the TNR pilot programs conducted between 2015 and 2018 in two locations were evaluated as ineffective by the government for not meeting established indicators for reducing the stray dog population and related nuisance complaints, resulting in no plans for expansion. This has caused a scientifically recognized source control method to stagnate in Hong Kong. However, does this imply that TNR is unsuitable for Hong Kong? Or do enforcement strategies and assessment standards need adjustme
  
• The Science and Practice of TNR: A Misunderstood and Undervalued Tool for Source Management
  
  The core logic of TNR is to humanely capture stray cats and dogs in a designated area, spay or neuter them, and then return them to their original habitat, fundamentally ending their reproductive cycles so that the population can gradually and humanely decrease through natural attrition. This is a long-term population management strategy that respects animal rights and aligns with animal welfare.
  
  The government’s skepticism regarding the pilot program’s effectiveness partly stems from challenges in assessment methods. Some argue that the average lifespan of dogs under care has increased, and the total number may not significantly decrease in the short term, coupled with the large range of the dogs’ activity which makes precise statistics difficult. This illustrates that evaluating TNR’s effectiveness requires a longer-term view and more scientific monitoring methods, rather than merely pursuing rapid short-term reductions in numbers. The value of TNR lies not only in population control but also in halting the tragic cycle of unregulated breeding: reducing the risks that newly born strays face from accidents, diseases, and poisoning, improving the quality of life for existing individuals, and ultimately minimizing community nuisances through a stable, neutered population.
  
  Hong Kong’s animal welfare organizations have continuously promoted TNR, even amid resource shortages. To transform TNR from a grassroots initiative into effective public policy requires government recognition, coordination, and resource support. This includes providing consistent spay/neuter funding to qualified animal welfare organizations, establishing community cooperation networks (especially with long-term feeding caretakers), and developing long-term strategies for phased implementation, supported by scientific monitoring of population numbers.
  
• Parallel Strategies: Building a Comprehensive Approach to Source Governance in Hong Kong
  
  To reverse the sad narrative of stray animals, we must decisively establish a comprehensive source governance system that prioritizes “prevention, science-based practices, and welfare at its core.” We propose the following dual-track policy recommendations:
  
  • Track One: Restart and Upgrade Scientific TNR Programs
    
    • Government-Led Public-Private Cooperation Framework: The government should reevaluate the positioning of TNR and integrate it into formal animal management policy. Through tenders or funding programs, establish long-term collaborative relationships with experienced animal welfare organizations to execute, record, and monitor TNR in designated areas.
      
    • Resource Investment and Support: Establish a “Stray Animal Neutering Special Fund” to significantly reduce the neutering costs for cooperating organizations. Additionally, coordinate relevant departments to provide necessary venues (such as post-surgery recovery spaces) and administrative support for TNR actions.
      
    • Develop Scientific Assessment Indicators: Move away from simplistic thinking that only considers short-term totals. Establish a multi-dimensional assessment system that includes spay coverage rates, population birth rates, individual health status improvements, and changes in community complaints, measuring program effectiveness with a long-term perspective.
      
  • Track Two: Establish Mechanisms for Preventing and Intervening in Animal Hoarding
    
    • Legislation and Policy Definition: Consider incorporating a definition of “animal hoarding” (such as a severe mismatch between the number of animals and the caregiver’s ability) into the amended animal welfare legislation to provide a legal basis for early intervention.
      
    • Establish Cross-Disciplinary Working Groups: Lead by the Social Welfare Department, assemble experts in mental health, veterinary science, animal welfare inspectors, and community workers into specialized teams responsible for receiving referrals, assessing situations, and developing individual management plans, focusing on treating the psychological issues of those involved and properly placing the animals.
      
    • Community Education and Early Identification Networks: Educate the public on the signs and dangers of animal hoarding. Train property managers, community workers, and veterinary clinic staff to become potential identifiers of cases, establishing smooth, non-punitive reporting and assistance channels.

The presence of stray animals is a reflection of human societal activities, mirroring the consequences of abandonment, neglect, and uncontrolled breeding stemming from a lack of responsibility. Continuing to rely on high rates of humane euthanasia to maintain a superficial sense of “control” contradicts the self-image of a civilized and caring international city.

In 2021, we stand at a crossroads for policy transformation. The data has clearly revealed the bottlenecks of existing models. It is time to summon political courage and decisively redirect resources and policy wisdom from costly “end-processing” towards more fundamentally significant “source governance.” By embracing scientific TNR and confronting the complex issue of animal hoarding, we can not only manage stray animal populations more humanely and effectively but also build a Hong Kong society that bears greater responsibility and kindness towards all lives.

This pathway of transformation is fraught with challenges, but every life saved from tragedy will stand as the most precious testament to this change.