Letters to Government March 1999:
1. Animal Cruelty
2. Breeding Regulations
3. Control of Dangerous Dogs
4. Hong Kong - a No Kill City?
1. To: Agriculture and Fisheries Department, Hong Kong. Tuesday, 16 March, 1999.
1. Major increase in fines for Cruelty.
It has been traditional to regard non-human animals as either incapable of suffering or, at least, outside the bounds of human compassion. However, it must now be considered a proven fact that the animals are as capable of suffering as we are. A modern person should be concerned about the suffering of others. This is not a matter of religious belief, just plain civilised decency. We are all citizens of this planet. But even if we look at the issue from a strict anthropocentric stance, we should realise that is in Society's interests to take seriously the question of animal cruelty. If we allow the message that cruelty to animals is not important to enter the minds of our children, it is not just a matter of their growing up being disrespectful of non-human animals, they will extend this disrespect to all they consider inferior to them - disabled people, people in other districts or classes, people in other races, countries.
Lord Bertrand Russell:
There is no impersonal reason for regarding the interests of human beings as more
important than those of animals. We can destroy animals more easily than they can destroy
us; that is the only solid basis of our claim to superiority. We value art and science and
literature because these are things in which we excel. But whales might value spouting,
and donkeys might maintain that a good bray is more exquisite than the music of Bach. We
cannot prove them wrong except by the exercise of arbitrary power. All ethical systems, in
the last analysis, depend upon weapons of war.
Dr Albert Schweitzer:
"Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as
worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives."
For an excellent article on this subject by Professor Raymond Wacks of Hong Kong University click here.
We must do our best to inculcate compassion in the minds of our young people. Compassion knows no boundaries. If a person grows up with compassion in his heart, he will not limit that compassion to one family, one race, one species. If we teach the importance of compassion to animals, the children will grow up compassionate to all. And the world will be a better place. If we are to teach Respect for Life and Compassion towards our fellow creatures, we must show that we consider all acts of cruelty to be serious.
US National Parent-Teacher
Association Congress 1933:
"Children trained to extend
justice, kindness, and mercy to animals become more just, kind and considerate in their
relations with one another. Character training along these lines in youths will result in
men and women of broader sympathies, more humane, more law-abiding - in every respect more
valuable - citizens. Humane education is the teaching in the schools and colleges of the
nations the principles of justice, goodwill, and humanity toward all life. The cultivation
of the spirit of kindness to animals is but the starting point toward that larger humanity
that includes one's fellow of every race and clime. A generation of people trained in
these principles will solve their international difficulties as neighbours and not as
enemies."
We must challenge the selfish and
anthropocentric attitudes that have encouraged exploitation of each other, animals and the
world to the point where human beings are now threatening their own very survival on this
planet.
Teachers, legislators and
magistrates must all be involved in this process.
"After all of the excuses,
people convince themselves that animals are not capable of suffering because if they
allowed themselves to face the truth, then they'd have to own up to their own
contributions to that suffering. Rather like Europeans thought that they did favours to
indigenous peoples from other continents by enslaving them. They took the primitive, childlike and
stupid people and took care of them. The bullwhips were necessary, as well as clubs to the
head, because dark skinned people did not feel pain like the Europeans did. Well, you can
keep your lunch down that way, I guess."
The Electronic Telegraph -
Sunday, October 6th, 1996:
The link between cruelty to
animals and the abuse of women and children should be recognised by law and
cross-reporting between the protection agencies could save lives, according to new
research.
Helen Munro, a veterinary
pathologist who conducted the study, is pressing for legislation to allow animal welfare
groups to exchange information with social workers, child protection agencies and the
police. Her campaign is being backed by Scottish police and animal welfare agencies.
"If an animal is being
abused in the home, the spouse or children are likely to be getting the same
treatment," she said. "If a father is kicking the dog, it would be a good idea
to check if the same treatment is being meted out to his wife and family."
Some of Britain's most notorious
child murders reaffirm the link between animal cruelty and child abuse. The two boys who
killed the Liverpool toddler James Bulger pulled the heads off baby pigeons; double
child-killer Mary Bell throttled pigeons for fun and the Dunblane murderer Thomas Hamilton
shot birds from his bedroom window.
Mrs Munro thinks that the
authorities should pay more attention to such incidents: "I would be very concerned
if children were doing very cruel things to animals, for they may be setting a pattern for
later in their lives." She is working with police and the Scottish Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to mount a campaign for the new legislation. At present,
the law prohibits animal and child protection agencies from passing information to each
other.
She is surprised that the link
between animal cruelty and domestic violence has not been given more weight in this
country. In 1982 a British psychologist, Dr Stuart Hutton, carried out a pilot study which
suggested that a high percentage of families with a history of animal abuse had also come
to the attention of social services. He found that those who neglected their pets were
likely to have neglected their children and violence against one often matched violence
against the other. Although Dr Hutton's study was ignored here, it was followed up in the
United States.
A Californian study found that a
quarter of battered women seeking shelter had reported the killing or abuse of family
pets. Another study in New Jersey showed that 88 per cent of families who had experienced
physical abuse had also experienced some form of animal cruelty.
The American Humane Association
has compiled a database - the only one of its kind in the world - which logs abuse of
animals and children. It is routinely used by police to investigate murders and serial
killings. Dr Hutton, who found that in many cases the pets and children were abused in an
identical fashion, believes a similar database should be set up here.
Mike Flynn, an SSPCA senior
investigator, says he is confident that the law in Scotland will be changed to allow freer
cross-reporting. "It would cost nothing because these agencies already exist - it is
just a matter of allowing them to pass information to each other without having to worry
about legal issues. There would be no cost to the taxpayer and a child's life could be
saved."
A book to be recommended is
"Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence: Readings in Research and
Application," edited by Randall Lockwood and Frank R. Ascione (Perdue University
Press, 1998). It is a 450+ page tome in large format with over 40 articles and case
studies. Writers include David Favre, Carol J. Adams, Temple Grandin and Bernard Rollin.
Animal abuse is a warning sign -
IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A SERIOUS CRIME!
Keith Hunter Jesperson,
"The Happy Face Killer" who confessed to eight killings said:
"We should stop the cruelty
to anything before it develops into a bigger problem, like me."
"Violence and aggression may
cause bigger problems than just the senseless beating of a cat"
Sondra London:
".....every single serial killer I have interviewed has told of an animal being
killed in his presence by his parent. The thing that really STOOD OUT BIG TIME with the
ones who talked to me was how unemotional they could be about a wide range of horrors, but
when it came to this pet-killing thing, they all got visibly disturbed right then and
there. It's not just that it did happen, but I could see that it had left deep
scars......."
Los Angeles Times Magazine:
"FBI Special Agent Alan
Brantley, who works in the bureau's behavioral science unit, said agents asked 36 multiple
murderers in prison if they had abused animals. About a third said they killed
and tortured animals as children, and about half said they did it as adolescents."
Humane Education News, 1997:
"Since animal abuse has also
been found to be an indication of child abuse, it becomes even more imperative that these
acts be investigated. In fact it has been found that animals are abused in 88% of the
families where children are abused."
The Progressive Woman's
Quarterly:
"Abusive men frequently use
pets to manipulate women's emotions, beating, shooting, disemboweling, strangling or
drowning an animal if the woman tries to leave. These abusers make women watch as they
kill the animal, sometimes even forcing them to have sex with a pet, saying, in effect,
"This is what I can do, and there is nothing you can do to stop me. You may be
next." "
State of Rhode Island Resolution
passed March 12, 1997:
"........Scientific, social
service, medical, judicial and law enforcement communities are beginning to recognize
violent behavior often first reveals itself in the form of cruelty to animals......
............Some of this
recognition has come about through detailed profiles of violent criminals. There exists
compelling circumstantial evidence linking serial and mass murderers with earlier acts of
cruelty to animals.........
............ Acts of animal
cruelty are very likely predictors of both domestic and societal
violence............"
Two Representative Cases In The News:
Pearl, Mississippi: Sixteen
year-old Luke Woodham, accused of stabbing his mother to death in her bed on October 1,
1997. He went on to school the same day to open fire on his classmates, killing two
teenaged girls and injuring 7 others. He tortured, set fire to and killed his own dog,
Sparkle.
Prosecutors in the Woodham case
say this account is from Luke Woodham's own diary:
"On Saturday of last week, I
made my first kill." After brutally beating Sparkle, they set her on fire. The diary
continues, "We sprayed fluid down her throat. Her neck caught on fire inside and out.
It was true beauty."
Springfield, Oregon: Friends of
15 year old Kipland Kinkel of Springfield, Oregon say he displayed all of the classic
signs of violence, often bragging about torturing and killing small animals. Reports
indicate that Kinkel killed cats, possibly his own family's cat, and a cow.
He also has a fascination with
guns and a quick temper that led him to be expelled from school twice in one week, for
acts of violence against fellow students.
He was accused of murdering both
of his parents, then going on to his high school to open fire on his schoolmates, killing
2 and injuring another 22, on May 22, 1998. Police also found four bombs in his home.
Press releases from the
Humane Society of the United States :
"The tragedy in Oregon
clearly illustrates the connection between animal cruelty and human violence," said
Dr. Randall Lockwood, a psychologist and vice president for The HSUS. "It is alleged
that the 15-year-old suspect in May's shooting, Kipland P. Kinkel, had a history of
killing cats and other animals. Time and again, we see acts of cruelty to animals mature
into violence against people. We urge teachers, principals and parents to recognize this
connection and to take reports of cruelty towards animals seriously. As in this case,
teens will often brag to their classmates about animal cruelty. Early intervention by
counselors can make a difference."
Kinkel also reportedly bragged
about torturing animals to classmates. According to Lockwood and many other experts in the
field, violence towards animals can escalate to killing people. This is particularly true
of family violence. "Abusers rarely stop to count the number of legs on their
victims," Lockwood states.
The HSUS urges psychologists,
educators and elected officials to take acts of animal cruelty seriously. "The days
of thinking that violence against animals is 'boys being boys' are over. Addressing the
violence in our schools, our streets and our homes requires that we reject the
conventional wisdom that killing animals is an acceptable part of growing up,"
Lockwood concluded.
Evidence that accused Oregon
school killer Kipland Kinkel murdered cats and mutilated a cow will be used by the Humane
Society of the United States to argue for studying links between animal abuse and juvenile
crime. The group says that about one third of suspects in 415 animal-cruelty cases
reported nationwide in a six-month period last year also were linked to violence against
humans.
The H.S.U.S. contends that
"much teen crime could be stemmed if youths' torture of animals were treated more
harshly".
California Rep. Tom Lantos will
soon press for a federal study of the issue. FBI experts support the idea, but it is not
yet known if the Clinton administration will agree to this study.
Raymond Wacks, Professor of Law
at the University of Hong Kong
SCMP - 24th December 1995:
Animals in the legal doghouse
Urgent measures are needed to
stop cruelty to pets, argues Raymond Wacks
MILLIONS of Hong Kong residents
are ignored by the Basic Law. Neither does the Bill of Rights mention them. The welfare of
the animals of Hong Kong after July 1, 1997 is not on any agenda of the Preliminary
Working Committee or the Joint Liaison Group. There are few Legco votes in it. Of course,
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will continue to apply our legislation that
protects animals against cruelty and governs the rearing, transport, and killing of the
creatures we eat, and the lives (and deaths) of those upon which we conduct laboratory
experiments.
The plight of endangered species
will also be safeguarded by domestic law and the international treaties to which Hong Kong
is a party. Is this enough? Though the territory's fauna are unlikely to cheer the
transition to Chinese sovereignty in 18 months' time, they have little to celebrate now.
Not only is our admirable statutory framework enforced sporadically, but even when
offenders are apprehended and convicted (a daunting task that is beyond the capacity of
the few government and RSPCA inspectors) the sentences they receive are of doubtful
deterrent effect. The law has plainly failed to keep up with inflation and the extent of
the abuse of animals for profit in Hong Kong.
The rapid growth in pet owning
has both positive and negative effects. While encouraging a better understanding of and
respect for animals, it has also increased their suffering. Domestic animals are, of
course, only a small part of the problem, but the disturbing combination of commercial
exploitation of pets and the irresponsibility of many owners poses intractable
difficulties for both the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the RSPCA who
attempt to bring offenders to book. In the case of the commercialisation of pets, the
heart of the matter is their breeding and hawking.
The former is unregulated by the
law. 'Animal traders' are legally controlled, but the term is defined so as to exclude the
sale of pets 'or any offspring thereof' - a gaping lacuna through which most hawkers pass
without difficulty. To 'hawk' an animal or bird is an offence, but the fine of $2,000 on
conviction is not likely to prevent hawkers from plying their trade when they can make
more than this amount on a single sale. It is hard to avoid the impression that the law is
utterly failing to deter the growing practice of rearing and selling of pets - and the
suffering this enterprise generates. In one recent example, the operator of a Yuen Long
breeding farm who, when the market in pets fell, left 25 animals to suffer and starve in
squalor, is reported to have been fined a mere $900 and given a two-month suspended prison
sentence.
Only four of the animals
survived. Some were in such an appalling condition they had to be destroyed on the spot.
It is rash, in the absence of the detailed facts available to a court, to criticise the
punishment imposed. But the ordinance in question does provide for a maximum fine of
$5,000 and six months' imprisonment. It would not be unreasonable to have expected a
significantly tougher penalty. Breeding inevitably leads to hawking. The pattern is a
familiar one. A 'cute' kitten or puppy is bought on impulse from a hawker on the street. A
few days after the purchase, the animal becomes ill (few have been vaccinated against the
infections which undeveloped immune systems are unable to fight) and it is discarded or
destroyed.
Many owners say they are 'too
busy' to look after the animal. Last year the RSPCA had to kill nearly 12,000 abandoned
dogs and cats - a thousand a month. Sentencing is a complex and delicate subject
particularly susceptible to public passions. In the face of what seems inescapably to be a
rise in the number of offences involving animals, however, the case for the use of
exemplary, deterrent punishment is difficult to resist. If a breeder or hawker of pets can
pocket $2,000 or more on the sale of an animal, he is not likely to be deterred even by
the current maximum fine. Convicted hawkers have recently received fines of as little as
$200. Something is grotesquely amiss when a parking offence attracts a heavier fine than
conduct that causes pain and suffering to another living creature.
The time has come to increase the
maximum fine of $5,000 for the offence of cruelty and the maximum fine of $2,000 for
failing to provide proper shelter. The figures should reflect the gravity of the crime and
deter the offender and others from similar acts. The urgent need to protect highly
endangered species against those who wish to eat them, has recently resulted in penalties
being raised to as much as $5 million plus two years' imprisonment for the sale of these
animals, and up to $500,000 plus a year's imprisonment for the sale of items derived from
them.
Only last week a pangolin,
salamander, five owls, and three otter carcasses, among other 'delicacies', were seized in
markets in Kowloon. The live animals were imprisoned in tiny cages and buckets. It can
only be hoped that the offenders will be charged and, if convicted, punished with the full
severity of the law.
Legislation is now also
imperative to regulate the breeding of pets. If the Government is unwilling to introduce a
bill, I hope a private member of Legco may recognise the need, but I am not optimistic.
The courts are naturally disinclined to impose custodial sentences in these cases, but
where serious suffering has been inflicted on an animal, there is a powerful argument to
be made in favour of sending convicted offenders to prison.
Like much crime, there is a
socio-economic dimension. It is normally the poor who, regarding an animal as simply yet
another commodity by which to make money, resort to these practices. In many cases the
animal in question has been left for long periods without water, causing considerable
distress or death. And, while negligent rather than intentional acts are often the source
of animals' suffering, it is hard to accept that breeders and hawkers are unaware of the
pain they cause - especially when they blithely abandon their merchandise.
Education is plainly necessary
but not sufficient: the law must speak loudly and unequivocally. In the absence of
compelling mitigating circumstances (which are hard to imagine), those convicted of
offences of cruelty should not be treated with the leniency that appears to characterise
current judicial practice. Thus in one recent case, the defendant who had attacked some
dogs with a metal bar was fined $500. In another, a dog was left in direct sunlight
despite an RSPCA inspector's advice. Severe heat stress necessitated the humane
destruction of the animal. The defendant was fined $1,000.
The list is lamentably a long one
. . . The recent enforcement of the ban on pet-keeping in government housing estates and
the introduction of similar prohibitions by many private developments, has aggravated the
problem of unwanted animals. Those that are not destroyed roam the streets in a pathetic
search for food. Disease is rife. The dogs form packs which may threaten other animals and
humans. Many pups are now being imported into the territory from China. Apart from the
suffering involved in this new trade, the prospect of the spread of rabies (recently
eliminated here) is real.
Clearly, it is not only human IIs
that border controls need to monitor. Two arguments are often heard when the subject of
animal welfare is raised in Hong Kong. First, it is claimed that concern for animals is a
Western preoccupation, alien to Oriental cultures. Secondly, it is suggested that this
disquiet is misplaced. Human beings, it is contended, are manifestly more important.
Energy spent on animal causes is better directed against human suffering.
Neither argument cuts much ice.
The first, even if true, is a dangerous one. Would we wish to justify, say, female
infanticide on the ground that it is regarded by a certain culture as acceptable? When
cultural practices inflict harm or suffering they become extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to defend. This sort of cultural relativism (disingenuously packaged as 'Asian
values') seeks also to justify cruelty to humans. It is no less intolerable when it is
applied to our treatment of animals. The second view seems to be driven by the idea that
those who are engaged in animal rights or welfare activities either subordinate human
interests to animal interests, or that they have a pathological indifference towards human
beings.
In my experience the opposite
tends to be true. Individuals involved in the animal welfare movement are frequently
dedicated as well to the alleviation of suffering of the oppressed or disadvantaged. Even
if this were not so, our concern for animals is inseparable from our anxiety about the
ravages we continue to inflict on our environment, and the consequences of this damage on
all living things. [END of Wacks' article]
2. Necessity for Breeding
Regulations.
Dogs and cats are being produced in Hong Kong by importation and breeding in
numbers far in excess of the number of homes available. The surplus animals are
either destroyed by the SPCA (about 600 per month) and the AFD (about 1000 per
month) or roam wild in the streets and countryside. These uncared for animals
cause road accidents, bite children, kill wild life (barking deer, civet cats,
etc.) and spread diseases to humans and other animals (rabies, toxocara,
distemper, etc.). In addition, their own lives are brief and wretched from
disease and starvation. This situation is common in many parts of the world and
will only be fully controlled when the whole population has been educated to
understand the problems. However, there are several useful measures which could
be instituted in Hong Kong now. New regulations are needed urgently - the
situation is deteriorating rapidly in Hong Kong and China. The popularity of dog
buying is increasing exponentially - like Gucci bags in the eighties.
Unfortunately many people abandon their animals when the novelty wears off. The
economic downturn has given some respite - PetFair Asia 1998 was cancelled after
being judged unlikely to make a profit. But we must be ready when the economy
recovers.
One of the reasons that animals are abandoned in the streets or parks is a
widespread cultural dislike of taking life - the alternative of having the
animal put down is unacceptable.
Obviously we must tackle this problem by reducing the supply side, there is
little scope in Hong Kong at present for increasing the demand.
The following are the
Legislative Actions we would like to see taken:
1. Licence to keep a dog or cat.
Current legislation requires all dogs to be licensed and receive rabies shots
every three years with proof by the insertion of a microchip in the neck.
Microchipping is a painless and highly effective method of identifying animals.
Its full implementation should prevent anyone from abandoning an animal and then
denying responsibility.
If the animal has not been desexed, there should be a significant licence fee -
e.g. HK$5000 every three years (i.e. significantly higher than the cost of
desexing). This fee should make the whole scheme self funding. Desexed animals
could be licensed without charge or for a small fee. Initial proof of desexing
would be by veterinarian's certificate.
After an initial period of, say, three years, if a dog or cat is found without a
microchip (or, to allow for technical failure, a certificate and record that one
was inserted), it will be either desexed at the owner's expense or rehomed.
There also needs to be a special licence category for registered stray dogs.
This is so that someone who Captures, Neuters and Replaces an animal will not be
subject to prosecution for abandonment of that animal. [C, N, R has been shown
to be a much more effective method of control of feral populations than random
killing].
2. Import Licence.
All imported animals should be fully vaccinated and at least 12 weeks old,
preferably 16. The import licence fee for a desexed animal should be nominal but
for an intact animal it should be significant, e.g. HK$1000. The animal must be
microchipped, preferably in country of origin.
3. Breeding Licence.
A licence should be required for commercial breeding. Illegally bred puppies and
kittens offered for sale should be confiscated and the owner fined. Indeed, in
our opinion, breeding should not be allowed until such time as there is a
shortage of dogs and cats. However, a draconian implementation of this ideal
would result in further illegal breeding.
New breeding regulations are currently awaiting legislative time.
4. Pet Shop Licensing.
The regulations should be made more stringent and the fees significantly
increased. Ideally the selling of animals in pet shops should be phased out and
animals should be obtained directly from the breeder or, better - much better,
from the SPCA. There are currently about 500 pet shops in Hong Kong. Far too
many! Not to mention illegal hawking and pet shops in Shenzhen which will, for a
small fee, deliver the animal to you in Hong Kong (apart from being illegal,
this poses a serious rabies threat).
5. Education.
Educational efforts by the different Government Departments and NGOs should be
co-ordinated. Funding should be partly from Government sources and partly
contributed by the NGOs. An adequate education programme is essential.
6. Animal Wardens.
The Government in co-operation with the NGOs should set up an efficient,
properly funded and high quality, district based animal warden service. This
would carry out stray dog control and education of dog owners. This should be
phased in gradually to replace the current rather primitive Government dog
catching service.
7. The Keeping of
Animals in Public and Private Housing Estates.
The keeping of companion animals in homes is a good thing. The understanding of
creatures outside our immediate family group is very important - it helps in the
promotion of compassion for others, be they from another race, another country,
be they disabled or sick, be they human or non-human sentient beings, be they
the older generation or the generations yet unborn. People must be taught to
consider the suffering that their current actions might cause to others.
Along with the right to keep animals of course must go the duty to look after
them properly and prevent them from being a nuisance to neighbours. It is
reasonable to forbid the keeping of dogs in certain estates or parts of estates,
especially if there is no access to an area for exercising and toileting. But
the legitimate desire for animal keeping should be allowed for in all new
housing plans and renovations. Local animal warden patrols - professionally led
but with a voluntary element - would ensure that irresponsible animal keepers
could be targeted - initially for education but ultimately for withdrawal of dog
licence.
3. To: Agriculture and Fisheries Department, Hong Kong. Saturday, 13 March, 1999.
Dangerous Dog Control
I was very interested to hear
your presentation on this issue at the AWAG meeting yesterday.
I do agree that weight is a much
better criterion than breed but, as you said, the weight of 20Kg is arbitrarily decided.
At the time of the meeting I did not have a clear picture of a 20Kg dog so I went home and
weighed my three. I was disturbed to find that even my small one was over the limit. I
think you have set the limit too low. As almost all dogs, except the toy breeds, will be
over the limit, I think there is going to be a considerable problem of enforcement because
of sheer number of animals involved.
I believe it would be wiser to
start with a 30Kg limit. Once that limit is established and working, then it might be
reasonable to lower it to 25Kg. I don't think many people find 20Kg dogs threatening.
Personally I am more nervous of the small yappers that go for your ankles!
I would certainly accept that my
35Kg dog should be subject to the regulations but I don't see how it is necessary for my
smaller ones at 28 and 22Kg.
I hope you will be able to
reconsider this. Thank you very much.
Yours sincerely,
John Wedderburn.
Reply from Government:
Our ref: (41) in AF IPL 20/12 Pt 3
29 March 1999
Dangerous Dog Control
Thank you for your facsimile. The main reason for choosing the 20 kg limit is that, during the Bills Committee hearing on the Dangerous Dogs Regulation, legislators wished to extend the controls to cover "chow" and "mongrel" dogs. According to the data we had at the time these dogs were responsible for over half of the serious bites in Hong Kong. Most of these dogs would be excluded if the level was set at 30 kg.
We have weighed a large number of dogs that pass through our kennels recently and have found that of the dogs weighed 33% were above 20 kg and would fall into the large dog category.
We certainly wish to see the proposal workable and feel that the requirement to have these dogs on a leash in an outdoor public pace is not particularly onerous for owners or their dogs. The muzzling requirement for indoor paces will usually only apply for a very short period of time.
I share your concern about the ankle bites but the records available in Hong Kong and elsewhere suggests that bites from these dogs are not a significant cause of hospitalisation.
As mentioned in the meeting we are currently exploring the option of exemptions for well trained obedient dogs that would be open to responsible owners who can demonstrated that their dogs are capable of being controlled off leash.
Thank you for your comments,
Yours sincerely,
Thomas Sit
for Director of Agriculture and Fisheries.
4. To: The Secretary, Animal Welfare
Advisory Group,
Agriculture and Fisheries Department, Hong Kong. Wednesday, 17 March, 1999.
I wonder if I could ask you to
put the No Kill City concept on the agenda for the next meeting. I am very serious about
this concept. It has been proved elsewhere that it can work and I believe Hong Kong has
all the right ingredients to make it work here too.
Allowing a surplus of dogs and
cats to develop and then killing that surplus is very inefficient as well as being
inhumane. Obviously I am looking from the humane standpoint but even from a strictly
cost-benefit standpoint a policy of surplus prevention makes good sense. And think what a
public relations coup it would be to have Hong Kong the first No Kill City in the East! If
you have time, please could you visit the San Francisco SPCA website and also the relevant
page on the EarthCare website.
There are various ways of setting
about making the concept a reality. The only thing I am certain of is that Hong Kong could
and should be a No Kill City. The stages on the road to achieve that are open to
discussion. If it is going to work, we need the co-operation of Government, private vets
and the public.
My first task was to persuade the
Hong Kong SPCA that it is an idea worth pursuing - SPCA has now formed a Zero Surplus
Subcommittee.
One of the necessary building
bricks of a No Kill City is greatly increased spaying and neutering. I would like to start
with an SAR wide campaign but it may be better to iron out the practicalities, and prove
feasibility to the doubters, with a pilot project first. There are international
organisations with expertise from similar projects who would be willing to come to Hong
Kong to help.
Lamma Island would be ideal for a
pilot project. The whole place is crawling with cats - you can hardly step off the path
anywhere without cats flying up. The stray dogs tend to come out only at night and are not
so numerous during the winter months. There is a very high incidence of cat and dog
ownership - many people have several of each.
One problem is that releasing an
animal, after having captured and neutered it, would currently be classified as abandoning
it - so we need Government permission to have a special category on the microchip
register. I am hopeful that the Government can be persuaded to introduce a higher
(differential) licence fee for intact animals and to increase the penalty for non
registration (although that is difficult to enforce). At the same time I hope the
Government will crack down on imports, breeding and selling.
It is clear to me that we could
easily get this wrong and we could lose the chance for another decade. I am therefore
gathering as much advice as I can. But Hong Kong would be a great prize as a No Kill City
- success here would be emulated throughout the region.
I look forward to hearing from
you!
Yours sincerely,
John Wedderburn
Copy to:
Dr KK. Liu
Professor S.T.H. Chan
SPCA.
Click your Back button to return to the page you came from.
