Hong Kong on Friday added two major shark families to a list of endangered animals whose trade in the city will be tightly controlled under CITES regulations.

The city is one of the world’s largest markets for shark fin, which is viewed by many Chinese communities as a delicacy and often served as a soup at expensive banquets.

Its trade is regulated under an international treaty on endangered species that requires export permits proving it was sustainably captured.

CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) — the treaty’s governing body — approved in November a plan to include the requiem shark and the hammerhead shark families on their list, which includes more than 50 species.

Hong Kong amended its list of endangered species “to give effect to the latest regulations of CITES on the controlled species”, a spokesman for the city’s agriculture, fisheries and conservation department said on Friday.

The new protected species list includes the two shark families, as well as various types of turtles and stingrays, according to the statement.

Domestic consumption has shrunk after years of activist campaigning, but Hong Kong remains a vital trade hub for shark fins — both legal and illegal — headed for the Chinese mainland and Southeast Asia.

Marine experts in Hong Kong say the majority of shark fins consumed in the city are blue sharks — which are part of the requiem family.

“Before the two families were covered, around 20 percent of the shark fins imported to Hong Kong were under control. But now with the two families, up to 90 percent would come under control,” Stan Shea, marine programme director for the BLOOM Association, told AFP.

He added that effective regulation would depend on the government training up frontline officers on the visual inspection and DNA examination of the fins, in order to identify the protected species.

Marine biologists estimate that more than 100 million sharks are killed each year, pushing vital apex predators towards extinction and ocean ecosystems to the brink of collapse.

Those killed for their fins have the appendage sliced from their bodies before being thrown back into the sea, where they suffer a slow death.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

By Anuj Chopra with Tommy Wang

Chomping peacefully on a fruitsicle cake in her grassy Washington zoo enclosure Mei Xiang is blissfully unaware that she and a handful of other cute pandas are at the centre of a ferocious misinformation campaign driving anti-US sentiment in China.

Evidence-free claims that pandas have been abused at US zoos have ricocheted across Chinese social media in recent months, fanning anti-American perceptions amid already fraught ties between Washington and Beijing.

The falsehoods, which researchers say were amplified by clout-chasing influencers, have cast a shadow on Beijing’s “panda diplomacy,” the decades-old practice of gifting or loaning the bears to other countries as a token of friendship.

In multiple posts on Chinese platforms including Weibo and Douyin, a video fuelled the narrative that Mei Xiang was abused by the Smithsonian’s National Zoo in Washington DC and made to undergo a painful artificial insemination procedure dozens of times.

The posts triggered impassioned pleas for the panda to be rescued and returned to China, with the hashtag “Save Mei Xiang” viewed on Weibo hundreds of millions of times.

But according to AFP factcheckers, the video actually shows a different male panda in Singapore undergoing a health check-up in 2015, a story widely reported by local media at the time.

In other posts on the same platforms, an image purported to show Mei Xiang’s mate, Tian Tian, sedated and restrained during an examination.

But the photo actually depicts a panda in China’s Fujian province undergoing an examination in 2005, according to the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab).

Rooted in nationalism

“Amid increased competition between the US and China, the deterioration of US-China relations is now echoed in Chinese narratives” alleging the mistreatment of pandas, the DFRLab said in a report last month.

“The narratives are deeply rooted in Chinese nationalism and mistrust of the West and have been amplified across Chinese media and social media.”

Last week, AFP journalists in Washington saw Mei Xiang and Tian Tian, seemingly healthy and devouring frozen treats in their enclosures as the zoo hosted a nine-day “Panda Palooza” celebration with panda-themed refreshments, film screenings and music concerts.

The zoo, which declined to comment on the online misinformation, held the party to bid farewell to the bears and their three-year-old cub Xiao Qi Ji, who will be returning to China in December as its contract with the Chinese government expires.

Another panda named Ya Ya was returned to China by the Memphis zoo in April after its loan agreement ended. This followed uproar from Chinese activists and social media users who accused the zoo of abusing her.

Many also blamed the zoo for the death of Ya Ya’s mate, Le Le, with accusations swirling online — despite no evidence — that zookeepers had stabbed the bear and sold his eyeball.

The zoo vigorously rejected what it said was “misinformation.” The Chinese Association of Zoological Gardens also backed the zookeepers, saying in a joint statement that the bears at the Memphis zoo had received “excellent care.”

But that did little to quell the nationalist outrage.

Fan those flames

China’s state-linked Global Times, the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party, linked the controversy over Ya Ya to US-China geopolitical tensions.

“If this had not happened during a period when Washington is intensifying its containment and suppression of China, this matter would not have caused such a stir,” it said in an editorial in March.

Amid tense relations between the two biggest economies over issues such as Taiwan, US observers say the Chinese government appears keen to condone and encourage anti-American sentiment.

“Misinformation around panda treatment is an example of a convenient way to fan those flames,” Isaac Stone Fish, chief executive of China-focused data company Strategy Risks, told AFP.

The misinformation not only bred mistrust about the United States in China but also sparked fervent calls to suspend the panda exchange, potentially closing what DFRLab called one of the few avenues of cooperation between the two countries.

Aside from Washington and Memphis, the zoos in San Diego and Atlanta have either returned or are set to return their pandas to China by next year. Without China’s extension of the loan agreement, US zoos face the prospect of having no pandas for the first time in 50 years.

“This (misinformation) campaign is particularly sad given the ways in which ‘panda diplomacy’ previously played such a crucial role in helping to foster positive relations between China and the West,” Darren Linvill, a professor at Clemson University, told AFP.

It is, he added, “an unfortunate sign of the current state of relations between powers.”

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

The government has urged Hongkongers not to pursue another whale that apparently entered Hong Kong’s southern waters this week.

The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) said the creature was spotted, but then disappeared, following a sighting by the Government Flying Service on Monday evening.

It comes after a whale was spotted in Sai Kung in July, attracting tourist hire boats. It later died, with evidence of propeller-related injuries.

In a Monday press release, an AFCD spokesperson said: “Members of the public should not go on boat trips to watch or pursue whales sighted in Hong Kong waters. In case whales are spotted at sea, they should keep a distance of no less than 100 metres, slow down their vessels and leave as soon as possible. Otherwise, government officers may take enforcement action.”

The AFCD added that it was consulting local and overseas experts to identify the whale’s species and condition, as well as what protection measures to take.

Marine experts appeared divided on what type of whale it might be. Local media outlets quoted a virtual autopsy lab based at the City University of Hong Kong suggesting it was a dwarf sperm whale. The chairman of Eco-Education and Resources Centre Ken Ching, however, said it was likely a pilot whale or a false killer whale.

‘Keep a safe distance’

The Ocean Park Conservation Foundation, Hong Kong (OPCFHK) said in a press release that their team – along with a government team – had searched the area on Monday: “The cetacean was spotted above water briefly at around 6pm in Sham Shui Kok with the assistance of the Government Flying Service’s helicopter but vanished after a few minutes. The search team will continue their effort to locate the cetacean.”

It also urged the public not to approach the cetacean: “Those who spot it should keep a safe distance from it and call 1823 to report the sighting to AFCD.”

Cetaceans are protected by the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance. Whale watching behaviour may be considered a disturbance of protect animals, attracting a fine of up to HK$100,000 and a year behind bars.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

A water monitor lizard that escaped during a medical procedure at Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden (KFBG) two weeks ago has been found safe-and-sound at the nature reserve.

A hiker spotted the Aberdeen the lizard on a hillside at around 1pm on Sunday, according to a Facebook statement from KFBG: “When he realised he had been spotted, he started to move quickly moved down the tree and ran along the terrace. Fortunately, a quick team member wearing thick gloves was able to capture and restrain Aberdeen before he managed to get too far.”

The 1.5-metre reptile was escorted by animal care staff to the on-site veterinary hospital for a check-up and was provided with water before being transferred to his original exhibition enclosure.

The lizard been a resident at KFBG in Lam Tsuen for eight years, after it was seized from the illegal pet trade.

“He appeared a bit dismayed about the sudden end to his adventure but once inside his familiar home seemed content that his walkabout was over. By 5 pm he was already interacting again with his enclosure mates. Aberdeen is in a mixed exhibit with several rescued tortoises and turtles, we expect they will have a lot of stories to share over the next couple of days!”

Water monitor lizards were once native to the city, feeding on rats, fish and carrion, but hunting and urban development drove them to extinction, according to KFBG.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong-based travel firm Klook has vowed to end ticketing for attractions which use wild animals for performances, or that force animals to interact with tourists, amid pressure from animal welfare NGO the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

Such tours still appeared to be on sale when HKFP checked on Wednesday, with the agency telling HKFP that its updated policy will be enacted on October 31.

In a Tuesday press release, PETA said that Klook had been promoting tours of the Egyptian pyramids that involved horses and camels that were subject to abuse. Footage shot by the US charity showed that “camels are routinely beaten with sticks and their legs are bound at Egypt’s notorious Birqash Camel Market, including one who was tied to the back of a truck and dragged through the street.” Other clips show horses with open wounds and untreated injuries.

However, following communication with PETA, Klook had agreed not to promote or sell tickets to such attractions, the NGO said.

PETA added that it was sending the company some vegan chocolates as a token of thanks.

“A major win for animals, Klook’s new policy encourages tourists to experience the splendour of the pyramids without climbing onto the backs of abused camels or relying on exhausted, injured horses for transportation,” said PETA Senior Vice President Jason Baker in the press statement. “PETA is applauding Klook for helping to save lives and inspire other tourism companies to abandon cruel practices.”

Animal experiences still available

Klook’s animal welfare policy, which is posted on its website, was first published in March and updated in June. It states that the company was committed to “helping to build a responsible tourism community and improve the lives of animals in the travel industry.”

The firm says it will not carry activities that involve trophy hunting and blood sports, or the consumption of wild animal products. Situations where wild animals are sedated or baited, as well as circuses, shows and performances where wild animals are forced to perform unnatural behaviour are also banned.

According to NGO World Animal Protection, the agency previously offered big cat and primate attractions across Asia.

When HKFP checked on Wednesday, camel tours in Giza appeared to be unavailable.

However, camel rides in Kobe, Japan, were still available for booking. Trips to monkey or elephant sanctuaries in Thailand were also remained on sale, as did experiences that involved swimming with wild or captive dolphins.

“Klook must go further,” Nicole Barrantes of World Animal Protection told travel news site Skift last Friday. “It must remove all wildlife attractions, including its elephant bathing and feeding offerings, which still involve significant cruelty behind the scenes.”

When asked by HKFP if the remaining listings were in compliance with Klook’s current policy on animal “circuses, shows and performances,” the agency said that updated guidelines “will officially come into effect on 31 October 2023.”

“Our approach is to continually work with operators to encourage long-term and sustainable change, with some necessary adjustments (which include the removal of non-compliant products) being made before end October 2023,” the spokesperson added.

“We are committed to helping to build a responsible tourism community and improve the lives of animals in the travel industry. We believe that the most joyful travel experiences are those where visitors can observe wildlife displaying their natural behaviours, in an environment that is safe for the animals and our customers.”

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden (KFBG) has urged Hongkongers to report sightings of a water monitor lizard which escaped from a temporary enclosure on the New Territories farm.

The 1.5-metre reptile, named Aberdeen, had been a resident at KFBG in Lam Tsuen for eight years, after it was seized from the illegal pet trade.

“He is not aggressive but should not be trapped or cornered as he is strong and will try to escape… His animal care staff miss him a lot as he has a special character, and some of them have known him for a long time,” the NGO said in a Facebook appeal.

It added that Aberdeen escaped whilst undergoing medical treatment for a damaged toe: “[H]e managed to push out a wooden panel and squeeze out through a small gap in the enclosure on Thursday… His escape has been reported to the authorities as we keep Aberdeen under a special licence linked to our wildlife rescue work at KFBG.”

The farm said it was concerned about the busy road adjacent to the property, though the animal was not a threat to humans. Sightings should be reported to 2483 7122 or 2483 7200, or fauna@kfbg.org.

Water monitor lizards were once native to the city, feeding on rats, fish and carrion, but hunting and urban development drove them to extinction, according to KFBG.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

A shimmering, 1.5-metre-long golden ballgown stood pride of place in a Shanghai exhibition hall Thursday — and for the cool price of US$13,700, your dog could be the lucky animal to leave Pet Fair Asia wearing it.

The plethora of luxury and sophisticated gadgets on display at the show, the region’s largest, is testament to the consumer power of China’s expanding class of young, tech-savvy pet owners.

From robot companions to AI-powered health-monitoring wearables, animal welfare is a lucrative industry — and if all else fails, cloning a beloved pet is also an option in China these days.

“If you have a puppy, it’s just like your own child,” a young dog owner named Song told AFP. “Anyone who has raised one knows… They hold a huge place in your heart.”

Pet ownership in China has soared, reaching nearly 100 million households in 2022.

Analysts have attributed the growth to younger generations, with Deloitte saying “changing views on family structure and an increase in single population” were a big reason for the boom.

“Young people are more individualistic, they don’t want to sacrifice their whole lives (raising children) like the previous generation, so they hope that by raising an animal they will immediately get that intimacy and warmth… but not spend as much time and energy,” said a young woman named Duan visiting the fair on Thursday.

And owners spend a lot of money on their furry family.

The $13,700 dog dress — which comes with a matching tiara — is hand-embroidered and designed for a canine wedding, stall manager Sun Chao told AFP, adding they usually got around a few dozen orders a year for such designs.

“The overall economic environment in our country in the past few years has not been very good, but the pet market is in a league of its own,” said Sun.

The industry is projected to grow 68 percent to 811 billion yuan ($112 billion) by 2025, according to iiMedia Research.

‘Together forever’ with tech

Pet Fair Asia is taking place over several days, with organisers saying its scale this year is unprecedented.

It features more than 2,000 exhibitors selling items as varied as tofu cat litter, desiccated treefrog snacks and dog doughnuts and macarons.

In a nod to the region’s intense work culture, remote surveillance devices were a common sight, allowing busy owners to monitor their pets from afar.

One US$169 robot can follow animals around, feed them, amuse them with a laser or broadcast their owner’s voice.

The next iteration will use artificial intelligence to help interpret the pet’s movements and react accordingly.

Technology is even being applied to overcoming death.

At Chinese company Sinogene’s stall, visitors crowded around a cage of identical frisky terriers wearing harnesses that read “I am a clone dog”.

The firm is one of the few in the world offering animal cloning services — enabling pets and their owners to be “together forever”, as its tagline states.

A representative named Dai told AFP they had cloned around 500 animals for Chinese customers since they began in 2017, including some for the country’s security services.

It costs between US$30,000 and US$60,000 to clone a dog, depending on its breed.

At the beginning, said Dai, the business was met with wariness from consumers.

“But with the development of the economy and people’s dependence on pets… people have slowly begun to familiarise themselves with and accept cloning,” he said.

While most of the show catered to cats and dogs, there were signs that more exotic tastes were beginning to take off.

Eager to appeal to pet lovers with cash to burn, an electric car company led an unimpressed-looking alpaca around as they gave out leaflets and stickers.

In one exhibition hall, a kaleidoscope of snakes squirmed in small plastic takeaway containers, and a small scrum formed around a box full of meerkats.

Meanwhile, a capybara studiously ignored showgoers’ overtures as it munched its way through its grass bedding.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Dozens of monkeys were spotted swimming in a pool at a private club in Hong Kong, prompting the closure of the facility for cleaning.

According to a minute-long video that circulated online on Monday, at least 30 monkeys were seen at the swimming pool. Some were lounging poolside and climbing on the beach chairs nearby, while others were swimming. Two monkeys also appeared to be chasing each other.

A man is heard saying in the video that the pool was at Hill Top Country Club in Tsuen Wan. He said: “[It has] turned into a swimming pool for monkeys… they are so happy.”

A woman is also heard saying: “Oh no, how can [we] swim[in these pools now]?”

The pool was empty of humans, the video showed. The club’s website stated that the swimming pool opens at 2 pm on weekdays.

Closed for cleaning

In a Facebook post published at mid-day on Monday, Hill Top Country Club said: “The swimming pool is temporarily suspended due to the disinfection and cleaning until further notice. Please accept our apology for the inconvenience that may cause.”

According to its Facebook page, Hill Top Country Club is a private club in Lo Wai Village in Tsuen Wan. The club offers guest rooms, restaurants and sports facilities including a golf driving range and a tennis court.

The club is located about two kilometres from Shing Mun Reservoir, which is known for its population of wild monkeys.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

A whale carcass has been seen in Hong Kong waters, according to police, adding that the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) and Marine Police were investigating the incident.

Police received a report that the carcass of a whale had been spotted to the south of Shelter Island on Monday. Further details will be released later, police said.

HKFP has reached out to the AFCD to enquire about follow-up actions and the possible cause of the marine mammal’s death.

A Bryde’s whale was first spotted in the waters near Sai Kung in mid-July, attracting many people who hoped to see the animal for themselves, with boats offering rides to approach it. Conservation groups urged the public to maintain their distance and not surround the animal with boats, as that may affect its ability to return to open waters.

Last Tuesday, local media reported that the whale had sustained injuries on its back, possibly caused by a propeller.

The animal was spotted with a cut on its back, with the injury suspected to have been caused by a sharp object such as a boat propeller, said Lydia Pang, senior manager of Oceans Conservation of World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) on Commercial Radio on Wednesday.

Whales were known to stop hunting and remain in shallow waters if under pressure, Pang said. The fact that it had stayed in the city’s waters might already demonstrate that it was feeling unwell, she added.

When the whale was first seen, the World Wide Fund for Nature said Bryde’s whales were usually found in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. Some may pass through the city during their migration, or it may have gotten lost or fallen sick.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Boat tour operators are not willing to risk breaking the law by continuing to hold whale-watching tours, after Hongkongers were urged on Wednesday to stop approaching the injured animal spotted in Sai Kung.

“[U]pon sighting of whales, the public is reminded that they should keep a distance, slow down their vessels and be aware of their personal safety to avoid accidents,” said a spokesperson for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department on Wednesday.

The marine mammal, believed to be a Bryde’s whale, was first spotted on July 13 in Sai Kung near Millionaire’s Beach. Since the whale sighting, Hongkongers – and journalists – flocked to the seaside town in the hope of spotting the whale, with boats in the area offering rides to approach it.

AFCD patrols

On Thursday, Sai Kung’s boat tour operators were manning stalls along the waterfront with colourful price lists, as skippers prepared their vessels under the sweltering heat for island-hopping speedboat trips.

One fishing tour operator, surnamed Leung, told HKFP that she knew of speedboat tours that headed out to sea for whale-watching tours over the past few days.

While she said the operator she worked for, Sai Kung Fishing Fun Point, did not offer those tours, she still received a pamphlet from AFCD officers who were at the pier that morning to warn operators and skippers against seeking out the whale.

“[AFCD officers] were here this morning, walking along the pier and handing out these leaflets to boat tour operators,” she said in Cantonese. “But I’m not at risk anyway, since I don’t do those tours.”

The leaflet for the “Code of Conduct for Dolphin Watching Activities,” dated May 2019, stated that the general rule for dolphin-watching was to “watch from a distance, and do not seek to touch, feed or harm dolphins.”

Only one dolphin-watching vessel should be present within 500 metres of a group of dolphins, and it should not enter a 50-metre radius of the dolphins. Vessels should be kept at a slow, steady speed not exceeding 10 knots, and should never be put in reverse when dolphins are nearby.

Those regulations apply to all marine mammals, including whales and porpoises, according to the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance.

The whale was spotted with a cut on its back in recent days, with the injury suspected to have been caused by a sharp object such as a boat propeller, said Lydia Pang, senior manager of Oceans Conservation of World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) on Commercial Radio on Wednesday.

‘Not taking the risk’

One skipper for tour operator Kitty’s Boat – who did not wish to give their name – said he did not receive a leaflet from AFCD officers that morning. However, but he knew about the government’s warnings against whale-watching on Wednesday evening from watching the news.

He told HKFP that he was among the speedboat operators who were in the vicinity of Hap Mun Bay Beach and the Marine Police East Divisional Headquarters conducting whale-watching tours over the past week.

He added that he “was not taking the risk” of breaking the law by continuing to provide such tours. However, he was less concerned about the department’s orders than he was about the chance of a looming typhoon.

He also said the whale should be kept safe: “Of course, it’d be good to protect the whale, since it’s already been injured. It’s been almost two weeks, and it still hasn’t been able to leave.”

Two other operators at the pier on Thursday morning spoke to an HKFP reporter posing as a potential customer. Each said they did not offer whale-watching tours, saying it was illegal for them to do so.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hongkongers have been urged to stop approaching a whale spotted in Sai Kung after experts spotted injuries on the animal.

The whale, which was first spotted on July 13 in Sai Kung near Millionaire’s Beach, is believed to be a Bryde’s whale. Since the whale sighting, Hongkongers – and journalists – flocked to Sai Kung in the hope of spotting the whale, with boats in the area offering rides to approach it.

The animal was spotted with a cut on its back in recent days, with the injury suspected to have been caused by a sharp object such as a boat propeller, said Lydia Pang, senior manager of Oceans Conservation of World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) on Commercial Radio on Wednesday.

The whale might stop hunting and remain in shallow waters if it is under pressure. The fact that it stayed in the city’s waters might already demonstrate that it is feeling unwell, said Pang.

“Actually some whale and dolphin watching guidelines suggest a 100-metre distance, if a whale appears within the 100-metre radius, we should try our best to stop or slow down the boat,” said Pang in Cantonese.

“Unless [the animal] approaches the boat, we suggest people do not actively approach the whale,” she added.

Pang also said that the whale’s wound seemed to be larger than several days ago, adding that she was worried the situation might worsen.

Members of the public approaching the whale may lead to “life-threatening consequences” for the animal, including trauma and an “inability to rest or feed,” said Ocean Park, and the Ocean Park Conservation Foundation, Hong Kong (OPCFHK) in a statement on Tuesday.

“Ocean Park and OPCFHK are concerned about the well-being of the animal and want to ensure that it is not disturbed or harmed in any way,” the statement read.

“Ocean Park and OPCFHK strongly urge the public to refrain from crowding and chasing the whale, as it can be dangerous and harmful to both the animal and human beings. The public is recommended to maintain a safe and respectful distance from the whale.”

The park and the foundation added that experts believed the whale needed special care from specialists, and that their team was “working closely” with the government to monitor the animal’s condition.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong customs officers have intercepted a shipment of thousands of live turtles and tusks from protected hippos destined for mainland China. The smugglers were feeding an insatiable Chinese demand for animals’ bodies.

With the dramatic rise of China in recent decades has come the emergence of hundreds of millions of middle-class and wealthy people able to consume to their hearts’ content. The great majority of them are carnivores. In addition to eating huge quantities of animal flesh, they consume animals’ fur, skin and body parts for fashion and so-called traditional Chinese medicine. 

This burgeoning demand has stimulated an exponential rise in the exploitation of animals. Never before in human history has the suffering and killing of animals been so great. As China has risen, the welfare of animals has fallen.

To be sure, China is not unique in leaving animals hard done by. Americans, for example, devour animal flesh with gusto. Some Japanese still eat whales. That said, in few countries are so many species consumed as in China.

What makes China’s impact on animals especially unique is the utter scale of it. With more than one billion people hankering after the flesh and bodies of other species, monumental suffering is inevitable. 

China’s growing meat consumption accounts for a quarter of the global total. Its per capita meat consumption greatly exceeds the global average. This will increase if people outside its cities follow official dietary guidelines.

Unfriendly treatment of animals

China employs a variety of venues and methods for inflicting suffering and death on animals, ranging from farms and zoos to animal experimentation and vivisection — to say nothing of polar bears and beluga whales on display in shopping malls. 

Often the government in effect requires that pain be inflicted on animals. For example, until two years ago it was mandatory in China that all cosmetics be tested on animals, and many products, such as hair dyes and sunscreens, are still subject to this requirement.

Examples of callous treatment of animals abound, such as the horrific exploitation of moon bears, whose bile is cruelly extracted and sold as an unproven traditional potion (and which, incredibly, China’s National Health Commission recommends as a treatment for Covid-19); the way that sharks are slaughtered at sea, their fins sliced off before their bodies are thrown overboard to what must be an agonising demise; the horrendous conditions that canines endure before and while being butchered; and the abuse of pets of all sorts, which are crated and delivered directly to people’s homes by e-commerce stores.

Pet abandonment is a growing problem in China, including here in Hong Kong. In July last year a man on the mainland was videotaped dropping a puppy from his car while sitting in busy traffic. It was only in 2020 that police handled China’s first case of pet abandonment.

That same year, Shenzhen made headlines when it became the first Chinese city to ban the eating of dogs and cats. Yet, each year in China ten million dogs and four million cats are killed for human consumption, most notoriously during the annual Yulin Dog Meat Festival in Guangxi. Peter J. Li, author of Animal Welfare in China, recounts visiting a Chinese slaughterhouse where “Dogs stood in a pool of blood from other dogs that had been killed.”

Last August, a Chinese online influencer had no compunction about feasting on a baby great white shark — supposedly protected in China and listed as a vulnerable species — and then sharing videos of herself “tearing off large chunks of the animal’s barbecued meat.” Perhaps her behaviour is understandable given that dried baby shark flesh is sold in China as cat food. 

It is possible that cats fattened on baby shark flesh have been eaten by people here in Hong Kong. In April a man was jailed for peddling “feline flesh for food” at his frozen-meat shop in Yau Ma Tei. That cat flesh was reportedly imported from Guangdong.

Farming animals comes with consequences

The huge scale of animal suffering in China is exemplified by its farms. Each farm animal is a sentient being that can experience pain and distress. This is worth bearing in mind when we tot up the number of farm animals in China, including 60 million cattle, over 300 million sheep and goats and nearly half a billion pigs. 

While many pigs in China succumb to disease, well over one million are slaughtered every day. In Ezhou, Hubei province, a 26-storey factory-farm cages and slaughters 1.2 million pigs each year. It has been characterised as “China’s answer to its insatiable demand for pork.”

But the numbers of pigs that live and die in captivity in China is eclipsed by the number of chickens suffering the same fate. More than 16 billion of them are slaughtered there annually.

Each year China’s farms produce more than 92 million metric tons of flesh for human consumption — not counting the roughly 12 million tons imported annually. Each gram of flesh lifted by chopsticks may have come from a sentient being.

For some decades the Chinese government has encouraged more animal farming, including of wild animals. Conservationists argue that China’s wildlife farms are used as fronts to legalise taking animals from nature. As one of them put it, “breeding farms can turn wild animals into farmed animals and turn the illegal activities into legal ones.”

China’s wildlife protection law does not prohibit the captive breeding of wild animals. It encourages farmers to view wildlife as “economic animals” that bring financial benefit. This can have some very serious consequences.

The global Covid-19 pandemic, which has killed about 20 million people according to some estimates, “occurred via the live wildlife trade in China,” just like the SARS epidemic before it. According to an expert in Hong Kong, another pandemic is inevitable and “will come from animal hosts. We must … ban the sale of wild animals.”

Due to the Covid-19 outbreak, in 2020 Beijing ordered the closure of nearly 20,000 farms holding all manner of creatures — boars, civet cats (the source of SARS), foxes, hedgehogs, ostriches, porcupines, raccoon dogs, rats, wild birds and much more. The objective was to “eliminate the consumption of food of wild animals to safeguard people’s lives and health.” 

However, by late 2022 restrictions on wildlife farming, notably of ducks, deer (likely carriers of Covid-19), mink (notorious harbours for Covid-19), raccoon dogs and silver foxes were being weakened, apparently to rekindle parts of the rural economy where local officials are incentivised to encourage all forms of business activity.

Exploiting animals far and wide

China’s growing demand for wildlife cannot be satiated domestically. Most of China’s own wild animals, including pangolins, tigers and bears, have all but disappeared. Consequently, Chinese businesses go abroad in search of wild animals: elephants, lions, pangolins and rhinos from Africa, bears from Canada and Russia, freshwater turtles from North America — and so on.

Demand among Chinese people for animals’ bodies has enormous adverse impacts on ecosystems around the world. Entire forests are felled to make way for soy farms to feed the swine whose flesh fills Chinese plates. 

Chinese demand and habitat destruction have resulted in severe declines in aquatic creatures. Seas are stripped clean of fish. Sea turtles are illegally captured throughout Southeast Asia and as far afield as Africa, making China the largest sea turtle “exploitation hotspot.” 

The diminutive dugong “sea cow” was recently declared functionally extinct in Chinese waters. It joins the Yangtze River dolphin as a casualty of China’s rapid economic growth. Hong Kong’s long-suffering pink dolphins may go the same way. 

Hong Kong’s famous seafood restaurants are supplied with endangered fish that are often caught illegally — to say nothing of the suffering of fish that one can witness in the display tanks of restaurants and the shallow troughs at wet markets across the city.

The modernity of animal exploitation in China

Animals have suffered greatly throughout the span of Chinese history due to the transformation of vast wild areas to farmland, leading to the virtual elimination of once-ubiquitous creatures, such as Chinese elephants. Nevertheless, the country’s history includes official attempts to encourage harmonious human relations with animals and nature. 

At different points in time, benevolence toward animals and vegetarianism were advocated by prominent Chinese scholars and officials. Some traditional Chinese philosophies discouraged actions that bring suffering to animals. Some Chinese dynasties outlawed cruelty toward farm animals, and some Chinese emperors sought to prohibit the consumption of dog meat.

The newfound ability of people in China to kill animals on a vast scale, with all the associated suffering that precedes it, is a particular feature of governmental policy since the advent of the People’s Republic in 1949. Judith Shapiro recounts “Mao’s war against nature,” exemplified by a misguided nationwide assault on sparrows in the 1950s, leading to a scourge of insect pests on farms because there were no more birds to keep them in check.

In today’s China, legal penalties for the maltreatment of animals are almost non-existent. To make matters worse, the government actively prevents the many people in China who are opposed to animal killing and suffering from organising and advocating for change.

Breaking the cycle of animal suffering?

In the 18th century, English philosopher Jeremy Bentham argued that animals have every bit as much right to be free of suffering as do humans. It has been half a century since publication of Animal Liberation, Peter Singer’s seminal book on animal rights. Surely Chinese officials can see the merits of these philosophers’ views, not least because they accentuate some traditional Chinese philosophies. 

Just because China’s 1.4 billion people have the ability to inflict pain on animals, dismember them, eat their body parts and destroy their habitats does not justify acting on that ability. Neither can animal exploitation and suffering in other countries be used as justification. This becomes especially evident when we consciously contemplate the life and death experiences of the billions of animals on farms, in cages and in slaughterhouses across China.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The government in Beijing could use its vast propaganda machine to convince people that protecting animals’ welfare is a sign of good citizenship. It could change nationwide dietary guidelines to discourage consumption of meat and increase the capacity of farmers to care for animals. 

It could enact new laws and regulations that equal, and ideally surpass, the highest standards of animal welfare in other countries. It could even learn from the Hong Kong police by creating a nationwide version of their Animal Watch Scheme, which investigates cases of animal cruelty, and it could measure police performance by how well they implement such a scheme. 

Recently the US Department of Agriculture approved the sale of artificial meat, giving Americans the opportunity to eat flesh without the associated cruelty and suffering. If China could corner the market on this technology, much as it has done with, say, solar cells and facial recognition tools, maybe Chinese officials could end their support for corralling and killing billions of animals.

In 2021 a university student was arrested in Tsim Sha Tsui on suspicion of animal cruelty for putting salt on invasive snails. This surprising empathy for gastropods from the informant and the police may offer a tiny glimmer of hope amidst the plight of animal suffering across China — even if this news went unnoticed by local diners tucking into their Cantonese-style periwinkle snails in black bean sauce. 

Snails may not cry, but if we could hear the cries of the billions of sentient animals suffering and dying in China right now, the wail would be deafening.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

SIGN UP to our mailing list

HKFP Dim Sum is a weekly email summary of our best content sent every Friday. Unsubscribe at any time. We will not share your details with third parties.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

A whale has been spotted in Hong Kong’s eastern waters, a rare sighting that has enthralled spectators and intrigued experts trying to assess the reason for the visit.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) said in a Facebook post on Friday the mammal was suspected to be a Bryde’s whale.

Catherine Lumsden shared footage of the encounter near Millionaire’s Beach in Sai Kung with HKFP on Thursday. “Still buzzing from it now! Beyond magnificent and stuff of dreams, and right here in Sai Kung,” Lumsden told HKFP.

The Hebe Haven Yacht Club also uploaded a video on Facebook, showing the whale poking its head above water and repeatedly opening its mouth before diving back down in a display of its dorsal fin.

HKFP has reached out to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) for comment.

WWF said Bryde’s whales were usually found in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. Some may pass through the city during their migration, or it may have gotten lost or fallen sick.

The conservation organisation asked people not to go in search of the whale as boat traffic and engine noise may cause it stress and disturb it. The Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society also urged the public to keep their distance and not surround it with boats as this may affect its ability to find its way back to the open sea.

Founding president of the Hong Kong Ichthyological Society Chong Dee-hwa told a radio programme that the whale did not appear to be lost in Hong Kong waters. Chong said it might have been chasing sardines, which bred rapidly due to the improved water quality in the city.

The whale was believed to be a Bryde’s Whale because of its size and its way of eating small fish – opening its mouth wide and filtering prey with its teeth.

Hong Kong and mainland China’s southern coast are home to a population of around 2,000 pink dolphins – the largest group in the world. Also known as Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins or Chinese white dolphins, their abundance in Hong Kong waters has declined by almost 80 per cent in 18 years, according to data collected by the AFCD.   

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong stray animal shelter House of Joy and Mercy does not just provide refuge for four-legged creatures.

“I would call this place my home because I live here,” Ivy Tse, the centre’s founder, told HKFP.

The shelter is located in a remote corner of Yuen Long. Within its walls, each of the more than 200 animals has a unique backstory.

Some were injured strays, left to fend for themselves on the streets. Others were abandoned by their owners for various reasons, while some were rescued from breeding farms.

“We have a white dog that was rescued from a breeding farm. He was injured and has a persistent erection problem, hopefully he will recover in a few months,” Gloria, who works at House of Joy and Mercy, told HKFP.

Tse has long loved animals. She once adopted a Rottweiler named Ah Gwan, who had been rescued from a breeding farm. Despite his size, Ah Gwan was scared of sticks and poles, such as those used for broom handles.

It was this that inspired Tse to name him Ah Gwan, with “gwan” being the Cantonese pronunciation for “stick.”

Ah Gwan died of cancer in 2015, which led Tse to contemplate the nature of life and death and become more devoted to Buddhism.

That same year, she invested HK$200,000 into establishing the House of Joy and Mercy, which is known in Cantonese as Ah Gwan House. In 2017, the shelter became a registered charity – it relies largely on donations.

Running the shelter is hard, busy work. Tse is constantly occupied with various tasks, such as processing documents for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) or animal welfare charity the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

She also organises volunteer groups and adoption days, attempts to balance donations and expenses, cleans up after the animals, administers medication, and tends to the dietary needs of the shelter’s dogs, cats, parrots, turtles, and goats.

After a long day’s work, Tse sleeps in a room at the shelter with elderly dogs that need special care, giving them comfort and companionship.

“It is easier for puppies and young dogs to get human attention; volunteers and visitors are willing to pet them. I spend more time with those elderly dogs,” Tse said.

Tse hopes that all animals have a peaceful end to their lives, which is also the promise made by the House of Joy and Mercy.

The shelter is committed to caring for all of its elderly dogs until they pass away, providing them with comfort and support during their final days.

Readers may find some images below to be distressing.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

By Kris Hartley

The Hong Kong legislature is discussing significantly stricter penalties for feeding pigeons. Violators could face up to one year in prison and a maximum fine of HK$100,000 (US$12,750) – 10 times higher than the current amount.

This policy revision aims to prevent overpopulation of pigeons and the associated impacts on other species and humans, including the threat of disease. Public signage already warns that feeding pigeons weakens their foraging instinct, compromises their health, and (vaguely) places them in “danger.”

The Hong Kong government evidently considers the feeding of pigeons to be a significant problem and is not satisfied with the outcome of existing policies. Data may not be kept on the number and percentage of people who feed pigeons, but it likely constitutes only a small share of the population. A lingering question is whether this generous subset will respond predictably to increasingly punitive measures.

One possibility is that higher fines fail to convince feeders that their behavior is detrimental. They may see the intervention more as government overreach on an issue of no apparent urgency. As such, these types of punitive measures must be combined with public education that underscores the threat of the problem.

However, with numerous other policy issues facing the city – rising housing costs, fierce competition among new graduates for decent jobs, and other problems – most people and all feeders may not look favourably on the effort. It could be difficult for them to envisage how anybody is directly harmed by feeding, even as there may legitimately be unseen threats to public health and nature.

Concerning implementation, measures will work only if they are enforced – and there has been discussion about strengthening enforcement capacity in combination with the introduction of this reform. Interest in cultivating the image of successful implementation may compel the government to prosecute one or several high-profile cases as examples. However, this signalling game risks turning prosecuted feeders into policy martyrs.

Another approach is to continue tinkering with the level of fines. Governments often adopt policies that require quantitative adjustments – moving a key metric up or down. In this case, adjusting fines could be done incrementally and compared to new results over time. An optimal balance can be found this way, but it takes constant tinkering, monitoring, and a lot of public communication. This is a rather inefficient strategy.

For people to act of their own free will, independent of government expectations, they must see the consequences of their actions. The detriment to nature or public health that comes from feeding pigeons – however significant or not it may be – is not readily apparent to most. If education matters, where people get their information is important.

Recent research I published with colleagues at the University of Melbourne found that people’s receptiveness to policies for scientific or technical issues depends on the credibility of the source – that is, the person or organisation making the policy recommendation. For Covid-19 measures like mandatory testing and vaccination, people in our study were generally found to have more trust in scientists than in government.

This difference in public trust was more pronounced in Hong Kong than in Australia, our comparison case, due potentially to lower existing levels of trust in the Hong Kong government. Nevertheless, low trust need not always lead to ineffective policymaking, particularly if the government solicits the endorsement of experts – as it did on some occasions during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Our research findings hint at what the government could do in this situation. If feeders hear more from scientists than from policy officials, they may be more willing to comply. Furthermore, connecting feeding with the risk of diseases and viruses could resonate particularly well in the wake of the pandemic.

The relatively few people who feed pigeons probably believe they are doing something good – or at least something innocent. Addressing an issue like this takes a cultural shift in values or everyday habits, something that governments are famously ineffective at managing.

“Life finds a way,” proclaimed Dr. Ian Malcolm in the film Jurassic Park. Feeders can take comfort in knowing that unfed pigeons will find a way. At the same time, I tend to think that feeders will also find a way – to keep feeding.

Kris Hartley is Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Program Leader of the Master of Social Sciences in Development Studies at the Department of Public and International Affairs at City University of Hong Kong.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

SIGN UP to our mailing list

HKFP Dim Sum is a weekly email summary of our best content sent every Friday. Unsubscribe at any time. We will not share your details with third parties.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Hong Kong will increase the number of “Parks for Pets” by 50 next Tuesday, bringing the total number of pet-friendly parks to 170.

Rather than providing cordoned-off areas for pets, the scheme opens up entire existing parks for Hongkongers to visit with their furry friends.

“When identifying suitable locations as Inclusive Parks for Pets, the department has considered different criteria, including the demand of the public for these facilities, size and location of the venues, ancillary facilities and their usage,” a Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) spokesperson said in a Thursday press release.

Hong Kong's new pet-inclusive parks by HKFP on Scribd

Excreta collection bins, hand-washing facilities and extra cleaning work will be rolled out for the new areas, the spokesperson added.

More details can be found on the LCSD website.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

An animal welfare charity, Team for Animals In Lantau South (TAILS), has said that they will stop accepting new animals for adoption as they are “full.” The founder has said there were fewer foster carers and adoptions after the Covid-19 pandemic.

Founded in 2018, TAILS is a registered animal welfare charity based in South Lantau, and is run by a group of volunteers, who rescue, rehabilitate and rehome animals in need.

In a press release last Friday, founder Esslin Terrighena said that there were over 75 animals in their care at the moment, and it was far more than they could support financially or practically.

She said that they had a budget that barely covered 50 animals and, suddenly, having 50 per cent more animals to look after created significant financial distress. “We are beyond our limits, and we are full,” Terrighena said.

She added that, while most of the animals came with multiple health issues, together with a recent increase in veterinary fees, TAILS had “ever-mounting medical bills.”

“It is unbelievably hard for us to turn away any animal in need, but right now, we are beyond our limits, and we are full,” she said. “In part, we have so many animals because people do not respect the boundary we set when we say that we are full, and simply drop off cats and dogs at our doorstep without our agreement.”

The NGO had therefore made a decision to concentrate on the 75 animals in its care, she said.

Fewer adopters and fosters

Terrighena told HKFP that they had no dedicated premises and rely fully on the homes of adopters or foster carers: “There is a lack of foster and adopter families in Hong Kong, in part due to people going back to work from the office, and travelling more.”

She said that there were still many animals being abandoned for different reasons, including leaving the city, pets having grown too big, financial issues, behavioural problems, age or health issues.

Terrighena added that there was an increase in stray cats and dogs. There was a shortage of qualified veterinary staff at clinics during Covid-19, making it harder to get stray animals desexed and, now, those animals were having offspring.

Terrighena called on supporters to foster, adopt or volunteer, as well as make donations.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

The government has proposed a ban on feral pigeons feeding, according to a paper submitted by Environment and Ecology Bureau to the Legislative Council on Monday that seeks amendments to the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance.

At present, feral pigeons are classified as domestic animals, as opposed to wild animals defined under the ordinance. The bureau has suggested that the Feeding Ban Area for wild animals could also apply to pigeons.

The government said that “feeding feral pigeons will inevitably attract other wild animals like spotted doves and tree sparrows to eat the food given by the feeders, resulting in altering the foraging and migration behaviour of the latter, and jeopardising their ability to survive on their own in the wild.”

The paper said that feeding feral pigeons can increase their population, threaten the survival of other wild birds and cause ecological imbalances: “The food itself and the faeces from feral pigeons and wild birds… will not only foul public places, but also disgust and cause inconvenience to residents nearby and passers-by.”

Penalty up to one year’s imprisonment

The authorities are considering an increase to the maximum penalty for illegal feeding in the Feeding Ban Area from a fine of HK$10,000 to HK$100,000 and one year’s imprisonment, which will be on par with other offences under the ordinance.

The government also suggested setting the fixed penalty at HK$5,000 for the illegal feeding of wild animals and feral pigeons: “This will allow enforcement officers to immediately issue fixed penalty notices to the persons who are contravening or have contravened the feeding ban,” the bureau said.

The government said they plan to introduce the relevant amendment bill at the Legislative Council in the fourth quarter of this year. If passed, the amendments are expected to take effect in the third quarter of next year.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Ocean Park has adopted a 35kg crocodile which was found in Pat Heung on Sunday. The 1.9 metre croc was transferred by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department to the park in Aberdeen that evening, with vets suggesting the animal is around four years old.

A resident of Lin Fa Tei in the New Territories notified police about the crocodile at around 1pm on Sunday. The reptile was seized by conservation officers at around 5:30pm.

“The crocodile displays active behaviour and will be held temporarily at Ocean Park’s quarantine facility for appropriate care by its veterinary and animal teams who have extensive experience in alligator care,” Ocean Park said in a press release. “The Park urges the public not to illegally purchase or raise protected wild animals, such as crocodiles, for their own and other people’s safety as well as animal welfare considerations.”

The Standard reported that crocodiles and black kites were reportedly being reared illegally on private property at the village. An attempt to capture the animal led it to flee through sewage pipes.

There are no native crocodiles in Hong Kong, whilst the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Convention) makes their import without a permit illegal.

Ocean Park’s veterinary and animal teams conducted check-ups on the reptile when it arrived.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

The number of wild boar killed by the Hong Kong government has tripled in a year, after officials launched a scheme to euthanise the animals when they encroach on urban areas.

According to figures submitted to the Legislative Council, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department killed 330 wild boar between April last year and February this year.

The figure was triple the previous year’s number. Between April 2021 and March 2022, the department “humanely dispatched” 105 wild boars.

The administration dropped its trap, neuter, return (TNR) policy, under which wild pigs in urban areas were captured and returned to the wild, in November 2021. The policy change came after a police officer was bitten by a wild boar in Tin Hau.

The new strategy of killing them was slammed by a concern group at the time. The Hong Kong Wild Boar Concern Group said the government had refused to meet them to discuss the new policy.

The department has killed 417 wild boars since the new scheme was launched. In the same period, it received 47 reports of injuries caused by the beasts.

The feeding of wild animals anywhere in the city has also been banned since last December, with offenders liable to a HK$10,000 fine. Previously, the ban was only applicable to areas such as Lion Rock Country Park and Kam Shan Country Park.

According to documents submitted to the Legislative Council, the government prosecuted 101 people for illegal feeding between April last year and February this year, with 79 prosecutions successful.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

An animal welfare NGO has urged China not to use animals such as pandas as political gifts. It comes after a 24-year-old male giant panda named Le Le died at Memphis Zoo in the US.

Zoo officials told reporters that the cause of death was unknown but “unexpected,” according to CNN. Experts from China will reportedly conduct a post-mortem.

Jason Baker, the Asia vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said pandas were not objects to be gifted for diplomatic purposes. “They are intelligent and social animals that form close bonds with their families and friends,” Baker said.

“It is heart-wrenching to think of Le Le and Ya Ya, who were separated from their families in 1999 and brought to the United States to live a life of captivity. For over 23 years, they suffered in a confined space that lacked natural dietary and social enrichment. Sadly, Le Le died in a state of physical and psychological distress.”

In a Tuesday press statement, he added that animals should be kept in the wild or sent to natural sanctuaries: “It’s time for governments to stop using pandas, elephants and other animals as political gifts. PETA urges that animals be kept in the wild or be sent to natural sanctuaries where they can thrive in their natural habitat and receive the care they deserve.”

Le Le, along with female panda Ya Ya, was set to be returned to China in April, as a loan agreement with the Chinese Association of Zoological Gardens reached it expiry.

In the wild, giant pandas can live between 14 to 20 years, whilst those in captivity can reach 30, according to the Word Wide Fund for Nature.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Hong Kong authorities have raided a shop in Yau Ma Tei and seized suspected dog and cat meat that was being sold for food.

In a Thursday night statement, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) said it had conducted a blitz operation with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) after receiving reports the shop was selling dog and cat meat as food.

AFCD said it had seized the suspected dog or cat meat from the shop and arranged for it to be tested. “Prosecution will be instituted should it be proven,” an AFCD spokesperson said.

The statement added that the FEHD also collected evidence from the shop to probe if it was operating without a license.

Eating dogs and cats has been outlawed in Hong Kong since 1950. Under the Dogs and Cats Regulations, anyone who sells or uses dog or cat meat for food could face a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a HK$5,000 fine.

HK$100 a catty

An HK01 report published on Thursday revealed that the shop, which is located on Reclamation Street in Yau Ma Tei, labelled some frozen food items as “M meat” and “G meat,” both of which were sold at HK$100 a catty.

A catty is a measurement traditionally used for food that is equivalent to about 600 grams. The price of the suspected cat and dog meat was close to frozen cooked beef sold at supermarkets.

When asked by reporters posing as customers what the products were, a person who worked at the shop said “M meat” was cat and “G meat” was dog.

The shop worker said that the meat was cooked and frozen in mainland China before being shipped to Hong Kong, adding that the shop had been investigated by the FEHD before, but the department had not found anything illicit.

The reporters bought both “M meat” and “G meat,” which were submitted to a laboratory for testing. HK01 reported that both samples contained either genetic material from either cats or dogs.

After the report was published, lawmaker Gary Chan, the vice-chairperson of pro-Beijing party DAB, wrote to the Environment and Ecology Bureau and urged the authorities to step up law enforcement.

“Hong Kong has outlawed the eating of cats’ or dogs’ meat for over 70 years, but a shop was found publicly selling cat or dog meat and disregarding the law. It is indeed intolerable in a civilised society,” the legislator said.

Chan added that the incident also showed that the frequency and thoroughness of inspections by law enforcement authorities were not enough.

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said on Friday morning that it “strongly condemns” the shop suspected of selling dog and cat meat for food. It also told the public to immediately contact the police and the AFCD if they spotted similar cases.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Since the dog and I had a snake encounter last summer Lemon refuses to visit our local Country Park. The rather boring local alternative is walking up and down Sui Wo Road. So after years of passing it unnoticed I now resort regularly to Penfold Park.

Penfold Park is a unique Hong Kong institution. It is not run by the government or local authority. It occupies the space inside the race-track at the Jockey Club’s Shatin horse casino.

Cynics may wonder if the Jockey Club’s haste to install a public park was in any way motivated by the desire to put something in the space before the government noticed that it was not actually needed for horse-racing purposes, and put something less decorative in there.

A close look at the architecture suggests that in the early days someone cherished the idea that some of the less strenuous horse activities would take place there. There is a trotting track, some practice jumps and a clear space on which one might gallop. But I have never seen so much as a hoofprint so I suppose this idea has faded away.

More successful was the idea that this might be a family attraction. There are toilets, a playground for the kids, and plenty of tables and benches for picnics. And on public holidays or weekends with good weather you do see some parties enjoying alfresco meals.

But the main beneficiaries of Penfold Park are dogs. The park is a dogs’ delight, a pooch paradise, Hong Kong’s hound heaven. Most days a visitor without a dog will feel undressed. On holidays there are dog crowd scenes. The park is decorative, with pools, paths, sculpted bushes and artistically clustered trees. But most importantly for dogs it has a very large area of grass.

Municipal parks in the territory have traditionally been adorned with forests of signs discouraging things: smoking, music, ball games, cycling, roller-skating, radio-controlled cars and, of course, dogs.

Regular readers will have gathered that I am not a great fan of the Jockey Club – an addictive vice does not become a virtue when decorated with conspicuous consumption, snobbery and animal abuse – but I have to admit that with the park the club has done a stellar job. It continues to do so – the park is meticulously maintained, bushes pruned, grass cut, fences painted – and offers no prohibitive notices except a small one pointing out that drones are banned on race days, when the park is closed anyway.

This leads us to one fly in the ointment: there is no public transport. The racecourse has a station, but it is only open on race days. There is a large car park and some people come in taxis. This is not a park for poor people.

Bearing this in mind the observant anthropologist can still spot some interesting characteristics of the local dog population, albeit at the more soignee end of the spectrum.

Interesting mixtures like my Lemon are numerous but not in a majority. The pedigree population comes in two categories. There are the display dogs: Old English sheepdogs, Collies, the odd Afghan hound, some spectacular retired (I presume) Greyhounds. Some of these seem rather impractical for Hong Kong’s climate. Two popular choices in this category are Huskies (anyone for three hours’ exercise a day?) and Samoyeds.

Then there is the most numerous group: very small dogs and extremely small dogs. These are mostly miniature Poodles but Yorkies and other midget breeds are also popular.

The size of this group reflects, I fear, the restrictions which many landlords – notably the government – impose on dog ownership in the properties they rent out or sell. A very small dog can be smuggled in and out in a bag. Designed bags for this purpose are a common offering in pet equipment shops. With your pocket pooch in a bag you can also, in flagrant violation of the regulations, take it on the MTR.

Owners in this category go for pedigrees for two reasons. The dog adoption people will refuse to offer you a dog if you live in an estate where they are banned, because too many dogs adopted in these circumstances are returned. So if you want a dog you must buy one.

From the owner’s point of view a pedigree dog is a better bet because you have a good idea of how big the tiny puppy you are looking at is going to be as an adult, a point on which the adoption people may not be very helpful. Most adoption dogs are mixtures so you cannot exclude the possibility of a Great Dane granddad in the family tree somewhere.

This suggests that the blanket ban on dogs in government-controlled estates has a curious and perhaps not very useful effect. It keeps commercial dog breeders in business and hampers the efforts of those organisations trying to encourage the adoption of existing dogs rather than the breeding of new ones.

A more general public policy worry is the number of young couples whose relationship with their dogs suggests that the pooch may be a surrogate for something else. Small dogs are wheeled out in dog strollers, primped in dog beauty parlours and dressed in cute gear. A newly opened café in Shatin catering for owners and their (small) dogs seems to be doing good business.

Is there a consensus among the (disillusioned?) young that raising a dog is preferable to having real kids? After all a dog is cheaper, easier to manage, and will never get big enough to want a room of its own. And you don’t have to worry about the merits of kindergarten classes in goosestepping and flag worship.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

SIGN UP to our mailing list

HKFP Dim Sum is a weekly email summary of our best content sent every Friday. Unsubscribe at any time. We will not share your details with third parties.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

A male giant panda gifted by China to Taiwan as a symbol of warmer ties died on Saturday after suffering a spate of seizures, Taipei Zoo said.

“Our medical team has confirmed that Tuan Tuan’s heart stopped beating at 13:48 (05:48 GMT),” the zoo said in a short statement that did not state the cause of death.

Earlier on Saturday, a separate statement said the panda’s condition was “irreversible” and that he could no longer “live a quality life”.

Vets first noticed Tuan Tuan, 18, was ill in August, when he began suffering seizures and appeared increasingly unsteady and lethargic.

Medical scans showed he had a brain lesion and he was placed on anti-seizure medication.

The zoo suspected Tuan Tuan had a brain tumour and he was moved into palliative care last month.

Tuan Tuan and his breeding mate Yuan Yuan were given to Taiwan by Beijing in late 2008, at a time when relations between the two were more cordial.

China views Taiwan as part of its territory and has vowed to one day bring the self-ruled democratic island back into the fold, by force if necessary.

In a nod to that goal, the pandas’ names combined mean “reunion” or “unity”.

The couple became huge stars in Taiwan and Yuan Yuan has since given birth to two female cubs.

Beijing has long deployed “panda diplomacy” and the gift of Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan was a move seen to endorse the presidency of then Beijing-friendly leader Ma Ying-jeou.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

By Sean Chang

Chinese veterinary experts have been invited to Taiwan, zoo officials said Friday, for a rare visit between the two sides after a male panda that symbolised an era of warmer ties was moved into end of life care.

Relations between China and Taiwan have been on ice since 2016 with Beijing severing official communications and government visits between the two sides scrapped.

But Taiwan has made an exception after Tuan Tuan, a male panda that was gifted to the island by Beijing in 2008, fell ill in recent weeks and looks to be entering his twilight days.

Taipei Zoo said the Chinese vets will stay for seven days and observe, rather than conduct, health checks.

“The main purpose is to visit Tuan Tuan and see his present condition,” Eve Wang, Animal Section Chief of Taipei City Zoo told reporters.

“They expressed their desire to come in person to visit Tuan Tuan. I also think it will be a very meaningful trip,” she added.

It is not clear when the vets will arrive but Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council said Wednesday they were processing their visa applications.

Tuan Tuan and his breeding mate Yuan Yuan were given to Taiwan by Beijing at a time when relations between the two neighbours were more cordial.

In a nod to the Chinese Communist Party’s goal of one day taking Taiwan, their names combined mean “reunion” or “unity”.

The couple became huge stars in Taiwan and Yuan Yuan has since given birth to two female cubs.

“He (Tuan Tuan) was small and so cute when he first got here,” said Heng Ling-lin, who brought her children to Taipei Zoo to sign get-well notes.

“He was like everybody’s baby,” she told AFP.

“It breaks my heart now to see him like this.”

‘Panda diplomacy’

China only loans pandas to foreign zoos which must usually return any offspring within a few years of their birth to join the country’s breeding programme.

But Taiwan was granted an exception as part of a brief charm offensive China launched in the late 2000s and was fully gifted both Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan and any offspring they had.

Vets first noticed Tuan Tuan, 18, was ill in August when he began suffering seizures and appeared increasingly unsteady and lethargic.

Subsequent scans showed he had a brain-lesion and he was placed on anti-seizure medication.

Earlier this week Taipei Zoo said they suspected Tuan Tuan had a brain tumour and he was moved into palliative care.

Beijing has long deployed “panda diplomacy” and the gift of Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan was a move seen to endorse the presidency of then Beijing-friendly leader Ma Ying-jeou.

China views Taiwan as part of its territory and has vowed to one day bring the self-ruled democratic island back into the fold, by force if necessary.

Relations took a dive in 2016 when President Tsai Ing-wen was elected.

Beijing loathes Tsai because she views Taiwan as an already sovereign nation and not part of “one China”.

Under President Xi Jinping, Beijing has since ramped up economic, military and diplomatic pressure on Taiwan.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

By Dr. Gary Ades, Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden

We understand that HKFP columnist Tim Hamlett, had a very close and distressing encounter with a Burmese Python when it attacked his pet dog, Lemon. This situation can be scary and unexpected; it is totally understandable that Mr Hamlett’s instincts were to protect his pet dog. However, we would like to express our concerns regarding his attitude toward an endangered native animal species which is also the last remaining top predator in Hong Kong. We are concerned about how the encounter is presented in this article and how this may be interpreted by readers, in particular in relation to the suggested violent actions against the snake and the invitation to “collectors” to remove the snake. We would also like to provide some further details about Burmese Pythons and other snakes in Hong Kong, as snakes often and wrongly receive a rough deal and there are many misconceptions associated with human versus snake interactions. 

It is worth noting that the globally endangered Burmese Pythons receive international protection and are also a locally protected species under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170). This legislation means that intentionally harming the snake (as suggested by the fact that the author “garrotted it” and recommended to “grab the snake’s tail and crack it like a whip”) or removing the snake (“if any collectors are listening, go up the path from Wong Chuk Yeung Village, turn right and you may find a somewhat chastened python”) are each an offence. The somewhat violent tones of this article towards snakes could encourage others to commit unnecessary cruel acts towards wildlife and ultimately contravene the law. There is also a safety risk with such a “hands-on” approach to snakes; incorrect and inexperienced handling not only risks injury to the snake but also puts you at risk of a bite, which could be life-threatening in the case of venomous species. 

The best way to avoid this type of conflict is to keep close control of your dog when walking in the countryside – especially as it is common knowledge that pythons are part of our natural biodiversity and venomous snakes could also be encountered by pet dogs during their countryside outings. Snakes are a natural part of Hong Kong and there is always the chance of an encounter, particularly when out in the wilder areas such as a Country Park. There are no reports of anyone being killed or seriously injured by a Burmese Python in Hong Kong ever, and the facts below help to illustrate that pythons are not so indiscriminate when it comes to choosing their prey. 

Burmese Pythons are ambush predators: they will identify a location where there is regular wild boar or red muntjac traffic and lie in wait for the prey to use the track. In the present case Mr Hamlett’s dog unfortunately walked past the ambush point and the python mistook the dog for the wild animal it was waiting for. Burmese Pythons are actually masters of their predatory trade and they are not indiscriminate hunters. Also when they plan to strike at prey they have a clear picture of the animal in terms of its head location and back end, and strike just below the head if possible in order to prevent the animal from taking a further breath as the constricting coils are thrown around the victim’s body. A clean kill is quick and the python manages this accuracy because it has a row of heat-seeking pits on the upper lip which helps provide a heat map picture of the prey, something we would normally associate with an infra-red camera. The snake’s image highlights the major hot spots in the body (brain, heart). Grabbing the leg of potential prey suggests that the python approached this particular ambush half-heartedly and prey such as wild boar would probably have escaped or had the opportunity to inflict severe injury to the python. The point I am making is that the python may have realised its mistake at the last moment. Of course a dog could also be a meal for the python but most likely it was waiting for a wild boar that frequented the area. 

All the above will not make Mr Hamlett feel any better but in trying to balance his response and comments regarding the incident I feel it is important to share some facts about the snake. 

Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden have been rescuing snakes and dealing with snake conflict cases for over 20 years as part of our Wild Snake Rescue Project. We also have several staff on a 24-hour list with the Hospital Authority to help medical staff identify snakes before the bite victims undergo anti-venom treatments at local hospitals. Our snake project is a collaboration with the Agriculture, Fisheries & Conservation Department and the police and provides a mitigatory process for many human-snake conflicts in Hong Kong and sees many snakes of diverse species re-released in the countryside. The project provides an end point/solution for snakes captured following police callouts in Hong Kong and we also educate many visitors through the project and provide some of the stories on our Facebook blogs. Our snake rescue team are experienced at working with snakes and we promote safe and correct handling of them, with human safety and snake welfare given high priority. 

Hong Kong’s native snake species form an important role in the ecosystems. They perform important predatory functions as mentioned above in the complex web of nature, controlling pest rodents and even eating other snakes. They themselves are predated by birds of prey and other carnivores, thus providing those animals with food. 

To learn more about Hong Kong snakes and safety when encountering snakes, you may refer to this resource, and this resources on what to do if you encounter a wild snake.

We hope to have balanced the anti-snake vibes that Mr Hamlett has sent out and hope he and Lemon have recovered from their unfortunate encounter. We are always happy to provide further snake advice if required. 

Dr Gary Ades, in the head of the Fauna Conservation Department at Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

SIGN UP to our mailing list

HKFP Dim Sum is a weekly email summary of our best content sent every Friday. Unsubscribe at any time. We will not share your details with third parties.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

You would think our leaders were aware that the last thing Hong Kong needs at the moment is another piece of vague, indiscriminate legislation which will provide a whole new plethora of opportunities for toxic interactions between officials and the public they are supposed to serve.

Is there, one wonders, an infectious spate of national security law envy? If there is, treatment is now required in the Environment and Ecology Bureau, which unveiled its latest stroke of genius at a recent meeting of the legislature.

The bureau, I do not dispute, has a problem. Wild pigs occasionally intrude in the urban area, attracted by the soft suburban lifestyle and the insecure dustbin, as many smaller animals have been before them. However a wild pig is a rather alarming thing to find in your housing estate, and the pigs themselves are in danger from traffic.

The current policy, inaugurated by an interesting coincidence after a wild pig bit a policeman, is to capture pigs found in the urban area and kill them. This goes down badly with a lot of people, including me.

The bureau believes that the reason the pigs frolic in urban areas is that misguided people are feeding them. I do not dispute that this takes place sometimes, but there are some doubts as to whether it is really the main source of the problem. Many urban estates put their rubbish out for collection in the morning in plastic bags, which are not much of a challenge to a peckish porker.

Indeed the Agriculture and Fisheries Department’s supposedly animal-proof litterbins are not much of a challenge either. During the period when restaurants were forced to close at 6 pm many people picnicked in or around their cars in the carpark at the top of Sui Wo Road. I am a regular nocturnal visitor here for dog reasons.

These visitors were respectable folk who put their rubbish in plastic bags and put the bags into the animal-proof bin provided, until it overflowed and the bags were then stacked beside it. I suppose it took a day before our local wild pig (I have never seen more than one) discovered this bounty and another night before he found his way into the “animal-proof” bin.

After that I saw him most nights until the restaurants resumed evening service. A pig with the smell of rubbish in his nostrils is resourceful and determined. No doubt people should not feed them, but we seem to be picking an easy target here which will not solve the problem.

Anyway, what is the bureau’s preferred legal solution to the pig feeding problem? Will it ban feeding wild pigs in the urban area, ban feeding them in other places, attempt something like “feeding wild pigs in places whereby the general public is likely to be inconvenienced,” ban feeding wild pigs at all?

Too timid, apparently. The bureau wants to ban feeding any wild animal anywhere in Hong Kong. It also wishes to raise the maximum penalty (there is currently a law against feeding monkeys in some places) for feeding anything to a year in jail or a $100,000 fine.

Apparently officials believe the present level of fines is too small. I rarely find myself defending local magistrates against charges of excessive leniency, but perhaps the fines are small because they ought to be. Feeding a monkey in a country park is not an offence of moral turpitude or financial gain and does very little public harm because the places where feeding is banned are the places where monkeys congregate anyway. So there is no obvious victim.

The bureau would also like to institute a system of fixed penalty tickets – on-the-spot fines, in effect — with the specified fine to be $5,000.

I am not sure which parts of this are most objectionable. In the first place, the making of a new law should not be an opportunity to blanket the territory with unwarranted prohibitions. The bureau says that the sweeping new law will reduce the “difficulty in enforcement” expected if the new law merely covered the things it is supposed to stop. This is not the way the Rule of Law is supposed to work.

The new law will cover, or threaten, lots of stuff currently regarded as harmless and perfectly legal. What is a “wild animal,” for example? Will it cover feral cows, feral cats, feral cats only outside official feral cat colonies recognised by the Society for the Protection of Animals?

Our local minibus drivers often eat their lunch outside our estate and toss the odd bit of bread to the local birds. This has allowed some residents to become quite well-informed about the local birdlife. We sometimes spot examples of the Eurasian Magpie, the Red-whiskered Bulbul, and an interesting grey thing which some observers say is a wood pigeon but I think is a wild dove. Having said which, the vast majority of our birds are Eurasian Tree Sparrows, which are quite cute but very common.

No doubt spokespeople will say that of course such trivial peccadilloes will not be prosecuted, even if theoretically illegal. But citizens should not have to depend on the discretion of officials to keep them out of trouble.

A government which wants to ban feeding pigs should ban feeding pigs and leave other possibly more deserving animals alone.

As for the on-the-spot fines, this is another item which is hardly compatible with our oft-repeated dedication to the Rule of Law. Citizens are supposed to be able to go about their lives without worrying about being instantly fined by some officious flunkey of the government for a minor offence.

Fixed penalty tickets are acceptable if the offence is simple and unlikely to be disputed, and if the fine is modest. The thin end of this wedge was of course the ticket for motoring offences, which had the advantage that anyone who was driving a car could be presumed to be a person of means. As the idea has spread to other areas the acceptable level of instant fine has increased exponentially.

A fine of $5,000 for many Hong Kongers is about half a month’s wages. According to the census people about 10 per cent of workers earn less than $10,000 and about 25 per cent less than $20,000 a month. Most Social Security recipients get less than $5,000 a month.

This is too heavy a penalty to be thrown about without at least the possibility of a trial. I know we have had $5,000 on the spot fines for Covid-related offences, but that has not been a happy experience. There have been far too many cases in which the exact requirements of the offence were not explored in sufficient detail, and some in which the only offence involved appeared to be failure to offer to police people the deference to which they believe themselves entitled.

Levelling this blunderbuss at domestic workers on their days off was not a good look, and the penalty looks incoherent compared with the case of the restaurant which entertained a birthday party for 100 people, including many bigwigs, and was fined only $6,000.

Perhaps the Environment and Ecology Bureau could benefit from a word with our new Secretary for Justice, who seemed to admit the other day that it was difficult or impossible to define “sedition” and may not want another legal Rubik’s cube to play with.

Or they could talk to the Housing Authority. Among public housing residents the urge to adopt wild animals is easily explained by the ban on tenants keeping dogs.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

SIGN UP to our mailing list

HKFP Dim Sum is a weekly email summary of our best content sent every Friday. Unsubscribe at any time. We will not share your details with third parties.

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Hongkongers are in mourning for their beloved An An – the world’s oldest male giant panda in captivity – who was euthanised on Thursday at the age of 35, or 105 in human terms, after his worsening health prompted “a humane endpoint.”

An An’s health had worsened in the past few weeks, while his physical activities and food intake also decreased severely, Ocean Park said in a press release. As of Sunday he had stopped eating solid food and could only drink water and electrolyte beverage.

“Unfortunately but as expected, An An’s condition reached a humane endpoint on 21 July 2022,” the statement read.

Veterinarians from the park and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department “made the difficult decision” to euthanise An An at around 8:40 a.m. on Thursday, after consulting the China Conservation and Research Centre for the Giant Panda.

An An and a female called Jia Jia were donated by the Chinese government in 1999 to mark the second anniversary of the Handover. Jia Jia died in 2016 at the age of 38.

Paulo Pong, chair of the Ocean Park Corporation, described An An as “an indispensable member” of the amusement park.

“An An has brought us fond memories with numerous heart-warming moments. His cleverness and playfulness will be dearly missed,” Pong added in the statement.

The park asked for condolence messages on its Facebook page and by 4 pm on Thursday there were more than 900 of them.

A video showing An An playing with a ball drew more than 100 likes as of Thursday afternoon. “I last met you in 2020… you were very adorable when playing with a ball after eating bamboo, miss you forever,” wrote Annie Au, who shared the footage.

Even the Chief Executive John Lee had earlier shared his concern.

On July 14 he said on his Facebook page he had learnt that An An had lost his appetite. “I hope everyone can express good wishes for giant panda An An!” he wrote.

Two pandas – Ying Ying and Le Le – are left at Ocean Park. They were born in 2005 and given to Hong Kong by Beijing in 2007 to mark the tenth anniversary of the Handover.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

I have been walking the dog on the same country park path for 25 years. Over the years different dogs have come and gone. The path remains pleasant, and a few years ago the District Council paved the whole thing, which is probably offensive to serious hikers but suits my ageing legs fine. The resulting warm relationship with Nature was rudely disrupted last Saturday when a large snake emerged from the undergrowth and made a grab for the current dog.

This was a distressing moment for everyone concerned. Lemon the dog gave a pained yelp. The snake, though silent, must have been disappointed. Lemon is large and agile so the snake was clinging only to a back leg. I was bewildered.

I have since been told by my son, who takes an interest in these things, that on occasions like this you should grab the snake’s tail and crack it like a whip. This is clearly intended for smaller snakes than my antagonist, which was about six feet long and as thick as a drainpipe. But no doubt if you follow this advice the snake’s head will eventually stop what it is doing and come back to sort you out.

However having no relevant training I just did what came naturally and grabbed the snake’s head. The snake retaliated by coiling its bottom half around my left leg and squeezing. There followed an inconclusive passage in which I tried in vain to find some way of discouraging the snake by working on its head. Then I had a moment of inspiration – I still had the dog’s lead in my hand. So I made a loop with this round the snake’s neck, held it down with the still-free right foot and garrotted it.

This did not produce any immediately obvious results but the snake got the message, and opened its mouth. The dog retired to a safe distance, and at that point everyone just wanted to go home. I retrieved the lead, the snake unwound itself from round my leg and we all left.

The dog needed stitches and I have some interesting new scars. Whether the snake was injured I don’t know and don’t much care. It left under its own steam. No doubt the snake was just doing what comes naturally to a wild carnivore. Nature, as we used to be told, is red in tooth and claw. But I also have instincts, and they include a violent dislike for anything that tries to eat my dog.

Clearly this snake is potentially dangerous. It let me pass unmolested but Lemon is quite an ambitious target – she is a big dog, about two foot six tall at the shoulder, and weighs 40 pounds. A snake which is hungry and big enough to tackle that might well be tempted by a small child, or even by a small adult.

So I sent an email to the government’s all-purpose hot email line and got a reply half a week later saying that if personally threatened by a snake I should call 999, and if I thought this one was generally dangerous I should report it to Shatin Police Station. It’s a bit late for that. Anyway I rather suspect that the snake has little to fear from the Law as long as it doesn’t bite a policeman.

But if any collectors are listening, go up the path from Wong Chuk Yeung Village, turn right and you may find a somewhat chastened python. Approach with care. He’s probably hungry.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

Animal rights advocates have expressed shock at a recent smuggling case involving over 130 cats and dogs found on a speedboat in Hong Kong waters.

“It’s horrific,” Sally Andersen, the founder of animal rescue charity Hong Kong Dog Rescue, told HKFP on Friday. “This whole thing exists because people in Hong Kong are buying kittens and puppies online… with no thought about what’s involved.”

Police said on Thursday that marine authorities seized 101 cats and 35 dogs stuffed into cages during an operation late on Wednesday, with as many as 16 cats in one of the cages.

The boat was intercepted following a high-speed chase in the city’s western waters near Tuen Mun. The animals – which were not microchipped – were all young and pedigree breeds.

“They were crammed into 17 cages. Each cage had a different number of dogs and cats, but we could see very clearly that they were [in] a very crowded environment,” Senior Inspector Tang Sau-yin of the customs’ marine enforcement group said during a press conference on Thursday.

Police arrested a 30-year-old man on charges including animal cruelty and importing unrecorded cargo.

‘Not an isolated incident’

The animals are currently being taken care of by the government’s Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) and NGO Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

The AFCD has taken in 78 cats, 34 dogs and one rabbit, while the SPCA has taken in 35 cats and 12 dogs.

“It’s not an isolated incident,” Andersen said, adding that Hong Kong was not cracking down hard enough on animal smuggling involving young animals bred in mainland China and brought to Hong Kong.

In January, police found 37 kittens and puppies on a speedboat bound for Hong Kong from Shekou, a port in Shenzhen. In another case last December, 52 cats and dogs were discovered in a van in the coastal New Territories village of Lau Fau Shan.

“It’s just an ongoing frustration that people… think they can buy an animal online as if it’s an inanimate object with no thought about what’s involved,” she said.

Animal activists have long complained that the city’s animal cruelty laws were insufficient for deterring related crimes.

Andersen said she did not know of anybody being prosecuted in relation to smuggling animals into Hong Kong, despite there having been a number of cases uncovered by police in recent years.

After rumours emerged online on Thursday that the animals would be euthanised if they were not adopted after four months, the SPCA clarified that the animals would only be up for adoption after the legal procedures were completed, which would be “no sooner than the minimum quarantine period of four months.”

‘Stop the buying’

Sheila McClelland, the founder of Lifelong Animal Protection, said she and others at the charity were “tremendously glad and tremendously sad” that authorities had intercepted the boat and seized the animals.

“Glad, because these fortunate kittens and puppies will now have a chance at a better life, and sad because so many more remain victims of this terrible trade and of society’s appetite for buying breed animals,” she said.

McClelland said the animals were spared from being tossed overboard to drown, the “tragic end of many smuggled animals” whose journey is interrupted.

In 2020, dead dogs that washed up on beaches in Stanley and Lamma Island were believed to have been animals left to drown in the sea by smugglers fleeing a police chase.

“Many people have been shocked by this incident and have been moved to offer to volunteer, donate or adopt. These are all important, but the most important thing you can do to stop the breeding is stop the buying,” she said.

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team