No Kill

The Hong Kong No Kill City Forum is a coalition of all parties interested in promoting the policy of "No Kill". Anyone can apply for membership by going to this website:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nokillcity/
The Moderator has the right to refuse an application or cancel a membership but has never done so except for spam. Members participating in debates should therefore remember that what they write may be read by a wide range of people with differing shades of opinion. Personal attacks should be kept to private e-mail.
We have held physical meetings but everyone is busy and we believe that generally the topics can be more satisfactorily debated on the Forum. A physical meeting can be held on request if required.
Posts may be in English or Chinese.
All new members are encouraged to read this page, follow its links and also read the archives at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nokillcity/messages
Members join as individuals but should try to reflect the views of the organisations they belong to.

"No Kill" is the term used for a concept of companion animal control in which methods are used to PREVENT an unwanted surplus of animals forming, rather than killing the unwanted animals which has been the traditional policy in most parts of the world. It is also called "Zero Surplus" and "No More Homeless Pets".
Most of us who have spent any length of time trying to deal humanely with the current huge surplus have come to the realisation that however hard we try, and however valuable our work is to individual lives, we shall never by ourselves make more than a small dent in the problem. We need Government help to reduce the numbers entering the market.

Humane societies were originally often formed to introduce "humane" methods of killing animals. Certainly death by injection is lot better than by drowning, electrocution, starving, gassing, decompressing, etc. But thanks to the pioneering work of San Francisco SPCA more than 20 years ago, we now know that we can prevent the necessity for killing by controlling the production of the animals.

Pet overpopulation can be compared to a burst water pipe in your
home. Before you can effectively clean up the mess, you have to turn off the water!

"Pet" overpopulation is a tragic problem which leads to the destruction of many thousands of innocent dogs, cats and other species each year. Although the methods of euthanasia used in Hong Kong are better than in some countries, the whole process is barbaric besides being ineffective. Despite the continual killing, the streets and parks of Hong Kong still have strays who pose major hazards to themselves and the public from bitings, diseases and collisions with vehicles. The animals themselves endure miserable lives of hunger, disease and suffering. This situation is not acceptable either to animal lovers or animal haters. The only people who are content with the current situation are those who are making money from importing, breeding and selling the excessive numbers of animals.
Hong Kong's main method of dog and cat population control is simply killing the surplus. This cruel and inhumane policy has been used for decades and is plainly ineffective. If the present policy worked there would be no surplus and therefore no problem. An animal control policy that does work but has not yet been tried in Hong Kong is the control of the supply by restricting importing, breeding and selling.
The short name that is used for this new concept is "No Kill". The term "No Kill" is in some ways misleading - euthanasia will still be provided for animals for whom there is no other solution to their distress. "No Kill" in this context simply means using preventive methods to stop the surplus from occurring, instead of waiting for the surplus to be produced and then killing it. San Francisco's pioneering policies have now been successfully introduced into many other cities both in the United States and in other countries around the world. It will be particularly exciting to demonstrate that this humane concept is effective in Hong Kong because other Asian cities can then be inspired to follow Hong Kong's lead.
The advantages of a "No Kill" policy are clear: the endless round of killings will be stopped; tax payers' money will not be spent on rounding up and killing thousands of animals every month; there will be no homeless suffering animals in the streets causing annoyance and upset to humans and to themselves; the risk of a Rabies epidemic will be much reduced.
The Hong Kong SPCA was founded eighty five years ago largely to institute humane methods of destruction, replacing the barbaric methods employed at the time. But times have changed, the Agriculture and Fisheries Department (AFCD) uses the same humane methods as SPCA and is well equipped to carry out the Government policy of killing the surplus - if that is what the Government wishes to continue to do. Today SPCA feels that its role in this killing is no longer required and that continuing to help kill the surplus is to be part of the problem. Until August 2002 nearly two thousand dogs were destroyed in Hong Kong each month by the SPCA and the AFCD. SPCA believes that as a humane society dedicated to preventing cruelty it should not be taking part in the killing of animals whose only fault is that they have no home. It decided therefore to change from being an "Open Intake" shelter to being a "Limited Intake" one. An "Open Intake" shelter takes every animal presented to it, finds homes for those it can find homes for, keeps in kennels those it has kennel space for - and kills the rest (in HK SPCA's case it was nearly 90% killed). As a "Limited Intake" shelter it now only takes in surrendered dogs that it believes it can find homes for. Of course the ideal is for a shelter to be both "Open Intake" and "No Kill" - a few communities around the world have now achieved this and we can all aspire to it. So what happens to the dogs that SPCA would have taken in before but now turns away? Every person who brings in a dog who does not fill the criteria for acceptance is counselled as to the choices. Sometimes appropriate medical or behavioural treatment will solve the problem. Sometimes a little more effort by the owner will find a new home. In cases where the owner, despite counselling, still wishes to have the dog killed, this can be carried out either at a private veterinary clinic or at AFCD. There remains of course a danger that these owners will opt to throw the dog into the harbour or abandon her in a park. But the fear mongers have been proved wrong - since SPCA in August 2002 stopped euthanasing dogs at owners' request (unless death was in the direct interest of the dog to prevent serious suffering), the total number of dogs "euthanased" in Hong Kong has nearly halved - and there is no increase in the number of dogs in the streets. This is in large part thanks to the new organisations that have sprung up to help adopt out unwanted animals. Previously, SPCA was sweeping the problem under the carpet by killing silently and efficiently. Now the community has embraced the problem and cooperates to solve it. It has been estimated that, if the Government takes this problem seriously and enacts effective preventive measures, the over-supply can be reduced by 15% per year. It should be clearly understood that at the moment the SPCA "No Kill" policy has only been applied to owner surrendered dogs and not to cats nor to stray dogs which by law have to be sent to AFCD. It is the opinion of this Forum that it is high time that the SPCA applied its dog policy also to cats and other species. It must be emphasised that SPCA going "No Kill" cannot solve the problem on its own. The aim is to make Hong Kong "No Kill" - not just the SPCA. The AFCD must reduce the importing, breeding and selling of dogs and cats. The measures that the No Kill City Forum has proposed are listed below.

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 killed by the authorities (about 2000 a 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. Unfortunately many people abandon their animals when the novelty wears off.

Dog and cat control should be relatively easy to achieve as it is one issue on which animal lovers and animal haters should be able to agree. The solution lies in a multi-faceted programme involving increased education, adoptions, appropriate legislation, etc, etc - but the most important element is a massive low cost Spay and Neuter campaign. This will only be effective if all parties cooperate. But the prize is great: 15,000 dog lives, and even more cats and other animals, saved every year. And if it can be shown to work in Hong Kong, it will be copied in other Chinese cities!

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. But the regulations must be changed to insist on the microchip being inserted before first transfer of ownership - ie at the place of breeding, whether in Hong Kong or abroad.
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 a 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 exemption category for registered stray dogs. This is so that someone who Traps, Neuters and Replaces an animal will not be subject to prosecution for abandonment of that animal. [TNR 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 before entry.

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. However, a draconian implementation of this ideal would result in further illegal breeding.

4. Pet Shop Licence (Animal Traders' Licence).
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 rescue centres. There are currently far too many pet shops in Hong Kong, 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).
Pet shops licensed in Hong Kong under Cap 139 as at 3/DEC/2002:
Licensed to sell dogs and/or cats: 149 shops.
Other traders licensed to sell various pet animals/birds (birds, non-venomous reptiles, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, chinchillas, rabbits): 116 shops.

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. The current efforts to promote "Responsible Pet Ownership" are uncoordinated and underfunded.

6. Animal Wardens.
The AFCD Animal Management Division should close down its killing yards and put its resources into:
Spay and Neuter
Education
Enforcement of the regulations on Importing, Breeding and Selling.

7. Dog prize-fighting
Everyone knows that this takes place regularly in various parts of the New Territories. It is illegal under current law but the venues are always heavily guarded and the police feel they have more important work. Only a long term change in public opinion can make a difference. This is a cruel "sport", demeaning for dogs and humans alike.

The following are the simplified proposals we presented in January 2005 to Dr York Chow, Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food (the Bureau which oversees the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department which is the department charged with managing animal affairs).

1. Licensing
All animals to be registered and microchipped before first sale/adoption
Registration fees to be free for desexed animals but retained for intact animals (ie all dogs, cats, rabbits and chinchillas) - regardless of sex
Strict enforcement of registration

4. Pet Shops Regulations to be improved and effectively enforced for animal traders, animal businesses and animal keepers

Dr Chow promised to get back to us by the end of 2005 but has not done so. We are pushing for a new meeting.
The proposals have also been debated many times at the AFCD's Animal Welfare Advisory Group - draft proposals have been drawn up but have not been actioned by the department.

Further information relevant to No Kill and its implementation can be found on these web sites:

Click on Wu Jui:

(Wu Jui befriended the Huizhou Bile Bears when they were waiting for IFAW to build their Sanctuary - he now lives with the bears at Animal Asia Foundation's Sanctuary in Sichuan)

Dog Control in China:

Dog owner threatening policeman with a meat cleaver:

在全国媒体的配合下全国打狗风暴一浪高过一浪四川省乐山市�人性化�处决流浪狗现场！！
　　近日乐山市对全市的流浪狗以及在公共场区的狗狗进行捕杀此行动将进行数月之久可怜的动物们啊
　　
　　文章来源：华西都市报
　　
　　�流浪狗也是条生命啊，可以不杀它们吗？�昨日，乐山中心城区开展大规模整治犬只行动，当地公安、城管和畜牧工作人员组成的犬只整治联合执法队仅仅在上午半天就抓捕了12只�违法�犬只，其中有4只流浪狗被处决。虽然此次犬只整治行动得到了很多市民的拥护，但同时也有不少市民表示，希望对流浪狗手下留情。
　　
　　　　据乐山市城管工作人员张友安介绍，目前乐山城区的犬只越来越多，给城市环境带来了很多影响，为此乐山市组建了联合执法队，并于昨日早晨6点展开了行动。执法队共捕获了违规敞放的犬只12只，除两只有主人的狗受到处罚后放掉外，另外有4只无主犬被执法部门捕&# 26432;，有6只身份不明狗被收容在一个临时的收容场所，一旦24小时没有人认领，它们也将被杀掉。

　　　　听闻即将有6只身份不明的犬只可能被处决掉，乐山一些爱犬的市民给本报打来电话，对流浪狗表达了同情。某高校大二女生蔡同学说，流浪狗其实挺可怜的，希望在处理它们的时候能够更加人性化一点，能不杀就不杀，因为它们也是一条生命。如果流浪狗属于那种疯狗，当然应该杀，但是一般的健康流浪狗不应该盲目地结束它的生命。家住县街的李先生则建议政府建立一个专门的流浪狗收容场所，专门收留这些流浪狗。
　　
　　　　乐山市公安局市中区分局治安大队副大队长刘建伟表示，目前乐山还没有专门收容流浪狗的场所，也不具备收容流浪狗的条件，所以现在没有更好的办法来处理这些流浪狗只有杀掉

Please help us to persuade the Government to take this problem seriously. The Surplus should be prevented � not killed. This will save money in the long term and be far more effective than the current policy of giving free rein to the pet industry. Join Hong Kong's effort to become No Kill:
Hong Kong No Kill City Forum 香港不殺之都聯盟
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nokillcity/