The Obstacles of Hong Kong’s Animal Rights and Welfare – The Faults from the Government / 香港在動物權益及福祉的絆腳石 – 政府篇

香港政府在動物權益及福祉方面的發展向來備受質疑, 除了對動物福祉的議題欠缺重視(他們只視此為部份政客及政黨爭取選票的手段), 整體上的動物福祉政策只是原封不動地沿襲殖民地時期的相關法例外, 不少政府部門在應對動物福祉及自然保育政策方面的態度並不積極, 甚至採取充耳不聞或倒行逆施的舉措, 引起不少動物福祉及野生動物保育團體的不滿。
Hong Kong Government’s role is mostly doubted over the development of Hong Kong’s animal rights and welfare. Besides their indifference attitude towards animal rights and welfare (they only viewed animal rights as some politicians’ or political parties’ means to gather public’s support) and the unchanged animal welfare policies before the end of the British colonial era, several government departments are passive over the raising importance of animal welfare and wildlife conservation, some of the Departments even impose policies violating them, thus arousing discontent from many animal rights and wildlife conservation groups.

1. 漁農自然護理署 / The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department

作為最直接處理動物權益及福祉的政府部門, 漁農自然護理署經常被動物福祉及野生動物保育團體批評為因循和涼薄, 其中一個最具爭議性的是他們人道毀滅流浪動物的問題。 為了對流浪動物產生的環境衛生問題作出最嚴厲的控制, 漁護署每年在全港各地捕捉不少流浪貓狗等動物, 據知他們在捕捉時曾以暴力手段傷害牠們, 其中有不少因為在短時間內(一般在一星期內)未獲主人認領而被人道毀滅; 不少中小型動物福祉組織為了拯救被該署捕獲的貓狗, 遂主動前往收容中心領養牠們, 但是他們的努力與被人道毀滅的流浪動物數量相比, 著實是杯水車薪。
As the most front-line government department in dealing with animal rights and welfare, the Agricultural, Fisheries anfd Conservation Department (the AFCD) has been criticized as procrastinate and cold-blooded by several animal welfare and wildlife conservation groups. One of the most significant examples is the AFCD’s policy on enthanasia towards the strayed animals. In order to control the hygiene problems and related nuisance caused by the strayed animals, the AFCD inspectors are used to catch strayed animal everywhere daily, they may hurt the animals by violent means during some cases. Many of the animal arrested are being euthanized as their owners haven’t rescued them in a short time (Mostly within a week). Some animal welfare groups thus paid visit to the AFCD’s kennel regularly in order to rescue some of the arrested animals, but the amount being rescued seemed inferior when comparing with the amount of animals being euthanized.

在被人道毀滅動物數量持續高企的情況下, 政府每年向漁護署撥款逾3000萬港元來支持他們捕殺流浪動物的工作, 遠比動物福祉機構每年150萬的撥款還多; 不少像「愛動物, 零虐畜」等動物權益壓力團體曾多次舉行示威, 要求政府停止資助漁護署的撲殺流浪動物工作, 並把相關資金轉為資助他們對流浪動物的「捕捉、絕育(及注射疫苗)、放回」(TNR / TNVR)工作。
With the larger amount of strayed animals being euthanized every year, the AFCD has received more than HK$30,000,000 annually from the Government to support such inhumane routine, which is far more than the annual subsidies granted towards the animal welfare groups (which worth about HK$1,500,000). Many animal rights pressure groups like Zero Animal Abuse has staged several rallies which urged the Government not subsidizing AFCD’s routine on catching and euthanizing strayed animals, and instead sponsoring the “Trap, Neuter (and Vaccinate) and Return" projects towards the strayed animals held by several animal welfare groups.

除此之外, 面對動物福祉機構一直強調成立「動物警察」的要求, 漁護署對此採取保留的立場; 他們認為警方已有越來越多的人手和資源處理及追查虐待動物的舉報及投訴, 另立「動物警察」和疊床架屋相差無幾。
On the other hand, the AFCD retained its conservative attitude towards the demands of establishing animal police. The reason is that the Police Force has input more manpower and resource gradually to handle reports and complains related to animal abuse, it could be a needless repetition for the establishment of an independently operated animal police.

另一邊廂, 為了方便監測野外動物的狀況, 漁護署為牠們掛上GPS頸圈以便監察; 不過頸圈的監測器甚為沉重並且綁得太緊, 影響動物的正常生活及造成痛楚, 導致不少關注動物權益的個人及團體予以抨擊。
As an attempt to monitor the daily situation of the wildlife animals, the AFCD tightened its GPS collar for the targeted animals. But the heavy weight of the GPS receiver and the tight collar has hampered the animals’ daily life and made them feel painful, which caught much criticisms from people and groups concerning animals’ rights and livelihood .

此外, 漁護署對寵物服務行業, 例如寵物咖啡店、酒店、美容院及訓練中心等, 缺乏適切的監管, 令使用相關服務的寵物受傷甚至死亡, 引起不少關注動物權益的團體, 如愛護動物協會及毛守救援等, 的嚴厲批評。
On the other hand, the AFCD hasn’t seriously impose stricter restrictions over the pets’ related services, such as pets cafe, pets hotel, pets grooming and training centres, which caused injuries and even casualities of pets using such services, has caught serious criticisms from several animal welfare groups like the SPCA Hong Kong and the Paws Guardian Rescue Shelter (PGRS).

面對民間及動物福祉機構等的質難, 申訴專員公署在2020年11月30日宣布展開主動調查, 審研漁護署對狗主責任的規管工作是否有效, 同時檢視他們在處理畜養狗隻人士棄養狗隻及領回走失狗隻的安排是否恰當等; 此外, 審計署在2021年4月發佈的調查報告裡, 批評漁護署在執行關於瀕危動植物的工作上辦事不力, 其中佔70%的調查及檢控工作用上一年以上的時間尚未完成。
With the increasing amount of criticisms from the public and animal welfare groups , the Office of the Ombudsman announced the launch of a direct investigation into the effectiveness of regulatory work on dog keepers’ obligations by the AFCD, especially the AFCD’s handling of cases involving dog abandonment and claiming of lost dogs by dog keepers is appropriate or not. On the other hand, the Audit Commission criticized the AFCD is ineffective in imposing the endangered species regulations from the Commission’s investigation released in April 2021, about 70% of the investigations and prosecutions are imcompleted through processing more than 1 year.

此外, 申訴專員公署在2021年12月發佈調查報告時, 批評漁護署對處理狗隻牌照的工作處於被動及欠缺效率, 除了難以確認牠們是否已注射疫苗及植入晶片外, 同時對動物福祉機構在接收流浪動物及為牠們安排領養的工作上, 造成大量行政程序方面的阻礙。
According to the investigation report released by the Office of the Ombudsman in December 2021, its criticized the inefficiency and resistant of the AFCD in handling the dogs’ licenses. Such drawbacks prevented people in confirming dogs being vaccinated and implanted, producing unnecessary administrative obstacles for the animal welfare groups in receiving and arranging adoption for the strayed dogs.

2. 環境保護署 / Environmental Protection Department

雖然其工作範疇以環保為主, 環境保護署作出不少破壞自然生態的行為, 例如他們批准在蜻蜓繁殖重點 – 沙頭角公路禾坑段 – 傾倒建築廢料, 儘管這項工程未獲規劃署及漁護署等政府部門許可。
The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) has permitted several environmental destructing projects, which has betrayed its responsibility in environmental protection: For example, the EPD has permitted disposal of construction wastes in Wo Han, Sha Tau Kok, which is one of the major living area for the dragonflies in Hong Kong, without the permission from other government departments like the Planning Department and the AFCD.

3. 香港房屋委員會 / Hong Kong Housing Authority

如果有人問及哪個政府部門是動物權益及相關福祉的最堅定反對者, 相信答案不外是房屋署(現稱香港房屋委員會)或食物環境事務署(見下點), 其中不少答案更會偏向前者。 根據房屋署對公共房屋及居者有其屋的租務契約, 為了確保公共環境衛生, 入住政府津助樓宇的住戶禁止飼養貓狗等寵物, 違反規條的居民會被充公居處及褫奪再次申請津助樓宇的資格。 儘管房屋署在2003年曾作出妥協, 容許經醫生紙證明有飼養動物需要的居民(例如有助緩解心理疾病者)繼續飼養貓狗, (但是他們有時違背這項妥協, 向獲得相關豁免的居民進行檢控) 但是他們仍以「獲得大多數居民支持」為由繼續禁止住戶飼養寵物, 類似的措施更被不少私人樓宇的地產管理公司仿倣, 令不少人為了求得安居之所而棄養寵物, 引起不少動物福祉組織的不滿; 綜觀香港與動物權益有關的民間壓力團體, 有不少曾要求房屋署取消入住公共房屋及居者有其屋住戶禁止飼養貓狗等寵物的限制, 甚至以此為他們的成立目標。
The Housing Authority and the Food and Environment Hygiene Department are defined as the 2 government departments which discriminate animal rights and related welfare, especially the former being described as the most diehard discriminator. According to the rental contracts imposed by the Housing Authority, residents of public housing estates and flats under the Home Ownership Scheme are prohibited from keeping pets like cats and dogs for hygiene reasons, or else they will be ineligible for re-apply another government subsidized flat and their current flat will be confiscated. Although the Housing Authority has allowed residents with related medical certificates, (which explains their mental uneasiness can be eased by keeping pets) to keep pets in 2003, (but they have forgotten such concession afterwards and sometimes prosecuted the residents with related allowance) it refused to abolish the prohibition of keeping pets" with supports from most of the residents". Some private housing estates follow suit over such policies imposed by the Housing Authority, forcing potential residents to abandon their pets in order to continue living in their flats, thus arousing discontent from several animal welfare groups. Many of the animal rights related pressure groups in Hong Kong have pressured the Housing Authority to cancel the prohibition of keeping pets, some of the pressure groups enhanced this as the objective of their establishment.

除了禁止居民飼養貓狗等寵物外, 房屋署對窩居在屬下屋苑的流浪貓狗採取趕盡殺絕的態度。 例如在2018年11月初, 青衣長宏邨的屋邨管理員以處理鼠患為理由, 用泥沙把有流浪貓居住多年的牆洞封掉, 引起部份網民和動物義工不滿, 在區議員及愛護動物協會督察的介入下, 屋邨管理員最終把牆洞還原。 儘管事件得以和平解決, 房屋署及旗下的外判公司對流浪貓狗的冷血態度可見一斑。
Despite prohibiting residents to keep pets, the Housing Authority’ push the strayed animals living in their housing estates towards the dead end. For example, the housing maintenance staffs of Cheung Wang Estate, Tsing Yi filled the hole of several strayed cats’ home in order to terminate the nuisance of mices in early November 2018. Such maintenance project has raised protests from some residents and animal welfare volunteers, with the intervention from the district council members and SPCA Hong Kong’s inspectors, the staffs re-opened the hole immediately. Such imperious action from the Housing Authority and its outsourcing agencies showed their cold-blooded attitude towards the strayed animals.

4. 食物環境事務署 / Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD)

食物環境事務署向來被視為殘害其他動物的元兇, 這種現象從2000年代的禽流感事件爆發後更為明顯,例如對在街上餵飼野鳥或流浪貓狗, 在街上撿走受傷雀鳥並在獸醫診所以外的地方(例如家居)為其診治等, 皆以妨礙衛生為由被定性為違法行為。 其中涉及殘暴對待雀鳥的案件, 被捕的施虐者聲稱雀鳥會傳播禽流感, 他們以維持社區衛生為理由來攻擊及殘殺牠們, 這點與食環署對禽流感的廣泛宣傳不無關係。 部份關注相關問題的動物福祉機構, 例如香港救援鳩鴿及雀鳥等, 質疑食環署的做法治標不治本, 建議政府在公園設立開放式「避孕鴿舍」等作配合。
The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) is used to be criticized as the prime culprit of animal abuse cases. One of the significant examples appeared since the outbreak of bird flu in the 2000s, feeding birds, strayed cats and dogs in the public area, picking up the injured birds and cured them in the indoor area other than veterinary clinics (such as someone’s home) can be defined as illegal due to hygiene reasons. For example, the animal cruelty towards the birds in recent years are related to the FEHD’s widespread promotion to the public about the hazard of bird flu, as most of the abusers claimed that their cruelty is to maintain the community’s hygiene and prevent the widespread of bird flu. Some animal welfare groups like Hong Kong Pigeon and Dove Rescue doubted the effectiveness of such policies, and suggested to establish pigeon lofts for neutralizing them.

另一邊廂, 他們以防治害蟲為維持社區衛生為理由, 要求其外判清潔商使用化學成份及毒素偏高的滅蟲劑及清潔劑; 根據香港大學太古海洋研究所在2020年初的研究, 發現這些滅蟲劑及清潔劑含毒素頗高的化學成份, 對鄰近海域及賴以為生的海洋生物造成污染和毒害。 面對這些批評, 食物環境事務署以這些批評的內容與他們的工作無關而充耳不聞。
On the other hand, the FEHD demand its outsourcing cleaning agencies to use poisonous pesticides and detergents in order to get rid of the pests and maintain hygiene standards; But according to a scientific research held by the Swire Institute of Marine Science of HKU in early 2020, the pesticides and detergents contained much posionous chemical substance, which in turn pollutes the nearby marine environment and produce harmful effects to the marine animals. But the FEHD remain silence towards such criticisms as they are not associated with their major duties.

除了要求外判清潔商使用化學成份及毒素偏高的滅蟲劑及清潔劑外, 食環署容許他們使用捕鼠膠來治理鼠患, 但是不少需要在地面覓食的雀鳥卻成為受害者; 不少關注相關問題的團體, 像香港觀鳥會及嘉道理農場暨植物園等, 要求食環署禁止使用捕鼠膠, 並從源頭解決鼠患問題。
On the other hand, the FEHD encourge outsourcing cleaning agencies to use mouse glue to get rid of the mouses, but the birds which are used to find food on the ground being the victims of such harmful tools. Some animal welfare groups like the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society and the Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden urged the FEHD abandoned the usage of mouse glue and solved such problems from its origin.

5. 康樂及文化事務署 / Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD)

與以上數個政府部門相比, 康樂文化事務署(康文署)在忽略動物權益及相關福祉方面的水平猶如「五十步笑百步」般, 表面可笑但同樣值得譴責。綜觀現時由康文署管理的公園、海灘及其他文娛康樂設施, 絕大部份是嚴禁貓狗等動物進入及使用的; 儘管他們近年來在不同地區開設寵物公園, 但是它們的位置較為偏遠, 甚至於基本設施不足。
When comparing with the departments mentioned above, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department’s (LCSD) ignorance of Hong Kong’s animal rights and welfare seems like the pot calling the kettle black, but still worth much to criticize. Most of the parks, beaches and other recreational facilities owned by the LCSD prohibited dogs and cats for entry and use; Although the LCSD has built several pets’ park in different districts, but some of them are inconvenient and lack of basic facilities.

除了寵物公園數量及設施不足外, 康文署在處理康樂設施的衛生問題時有虐待及毒害動物之嫌: 例如荔枝角公園為了撲滅蚊蠓虻蠅, 在燈柱上貼上鮮黃色的誘蟲黏紙, 但是中招的往往是壁虎、鵲鴝甚至於街貓等, 結果遭受香港兩棲及爬蟲協會等動物福祉機構譴責, 部份動物福祉機構如愛護動物協會等強烈呼籲政府部門及物業管理公司停止使用誘蟲黏紙; 啟德跑道公園為了處理草坪上蝸牛為患的問題, 遂大量放置足以毒死狗隻的滅蟲藥「殺螺粒」, 愛護動物協會在收到狗主投訴後介入事件, 最終康文署封閉草坪並進行徹底清理。
Despite the inadequate amount and facilities of pets’ parks, the LCSD has indirectly involved in animal abuse and poisoning when tackling hygiene problems of their parks. For example, the Lai Chi Kok Park tried to get rid of the mosquito and midges by insect stickers fixed on every lamp post, but the lizards, magpies robin and cats are trapped by these powerful stickers, such mistakes gather criticisms from several animal welfare groups like the Hong Kong Society of Herpetology Foundation, while other animal welfare groups like the SPCA Hong Kong urged the Government departments and property management agencies stop using the insect stickers; The maintenance staffs of the Kai Tak Runway Park put the molluscicides on their grassland in order to kill the snails and other pests, but they forgot such pesticides can also kill larger animals like dogs; After several complains from the pet owners and intervention from the SPCA Hong Kong, the staffs finally agreed to clear all the molluscicides being put on their grassland.

6. 教育局 / The Education Bureau

也許有讀者質疑教育局是否對動物權益及福祉的議題充耳不聞, 但是誠如他們在2019年「反修例暴動」初期的角色一樣, 消極不干預也是助長罪惡的手段之一。 例如2013年馬鞍山東華三院黃鳳翎中學因為「畏貓老師」不斷申訴而驅逐校內流浪貓事件, 校方在平等機會委員會的施壓下尋求漁護署捕捉在校內居留的流浪貓, 引起不少動物福祉組織的強烈不滿; 可惜的是教育局認為這宗事件是學校的內部事務, 理應由校方自行解決。 在教育局的消極不干預下, 不少學校對維護動物權益及福祉的態度並不一致, 例如部份學校禁止在校園內外餵飼流浪動物, 令人懷疑他們是否存心排擠境況悽慘的動物, 儘管他們以環境衛生的理由加以搪塞。
Some readers may doubt the Education Bureau ignorance on Hong Kong’s animal rights and welfare, but just like their attitude towards the riots associated with “anti-extradition law amendment bill" in the early days, being non-interventionist is the reason of wide-spreading criminal behaviours. For example, TWGHs Wong Fung Ling College seeked help from the AFCD to catch all the strayed cats living in the school due to the one teacher’s cats phobia and pressures from the Equal Opportunities Commission, arousing lots of protests from many animal welfare groups; But the Education Bureau remained silence over the protests, urged that such decisions are the school’s internal affairs and should be solved by the school itself. With the non-interventionist attitude of the Education Bureau, many schools have different (or even contradictory) towards respecting animal rights and related welfare; Some schools prohibited people feeding strayed animals inside or outside their campus for hygiene reasons, but it seems too controversial towards their responsibilities to promote life education as their policies violate the basic livelihood of these poor animals.

7. 規劃署及發展局 / Planning Department and the Development Bureau

在香港土地不足的窘境下, 規劃署固然有確保土地的用途是用得其所, 但在執法上往往「欺善怕惡」, 不少中小型動物福祉機構往往成為他們欺壓的對象之一。 例如他們在2020年以違例發展為由控告由「動物義工 貓狗之家」營運的動物收容中心, 並要求後者繳付23萬港元的罰款; 由於「動物義工 貓狗之家」只由數名動物義工營運, 在無法承擔罰款的情況下幾乎要結束營業; 幸好在事件曝光後, 不少網民積極捐款給他們方可勉強解決, 他們趁機繼續向規劃署跟進申請改變土地用途的進度。 事實上, 部份已註冊的動物福祉機構, 像沙律貓狗之家及Kelly Animals Shelter等, 曾因為規劃署及相關政府部門指控擅改土地用途及僭建等而被逼遷, 對動物福祉機構及它們照顧的動物造成嚴重的滋擾。
With the shortcomings of usable land, the Planning Department is responsible to make sure the land are properly used. Many animal welfare groups become the victim of this department due to its “bully the weak-kneel and fear the firm" attitude in imposing their laws. For example, they sued the Animal Volunteers Charity Ltd in October 2020 due to their illegal development of their animal rescue centre, and urged the volunteers to pay HK$230,000 fine over this case. As the Animal Volunteers Charity Ltd are only established by several animal welfare volunteers, they couldn’t afford the fine and considered to close their animal rescue center. But many netizens sponsored the small firm after this case was exposed to the public, which eventually helped them to pay the fine and continue urging the Planning Development to change the land use of their animal rescue centre. Besides the example of Animal Volunteers Charity Ltd, some registered animal welfare groups like the Maison de Charlotte pour des Chats et des Chiens and Kelly Animals Shelter are forced to move away from their original address due to the offenses of unauthorized land use and unauthorized construction, which are staged by the Planning Department and related government departments. Such legal procedures produced lots of nuisances towards the animal welfare groups and the animals they’ve rescued.

此外, 規劃署在計劃民生工程時, 往往忽略對鄰近生態環境造成的破壞: 例如在2011年興建港鐵南港島線時, 儘管在工程期間利用有顏色的夾板分隔地盤和避免在牠們較活躍的時段動工, 同時在工程竣工後補種樹木作補償, 但是不少本來聚居於黃竹坑河邊的白鷺在工程影響下, 相繼遷徙到鴨脷洲及大樹灣; 不少本來聚居於沙田城門河流域、大圍及彭福公園的鷺鳥, 因為T4主幹道及相關工程的興建, 造成性命威脅而相繼消失, 香港觀鳥會批評規劃署欠缺妥善的環境保護措施, 對本來在當地聚居的牠們造成極大的滋擾 。
On the other hand, the Planning Department ignored the destruction of nearby biological environment when proposing their civil engineering projects. For example, many herons emigrated from Wong Chak Hang to Ap Lei Chau and Tai Shue Wan when the construction of MTR South Island Line in 2011, although the building sites have been boarded by colorful splints and avoid working in their active period daily, and planted many trees on the site after the construction projects were completed. Recently the population of herons living in Shatin (such as the Shing Mun River, Tai Wai and Penford Park) has been decreased sharply due to the construction of T4 highway and related projects, the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society criticized the wide-spreading construction projects staged by the Planning Department produced intolerable nuisances towards the herons and other birds living in Shatin.

另外世界自然基金會(香港)在2021年9月的相關報告指稱, 規劃署以私人土地業權為由, 令大嶼山南岸的海洋生態環境長期備受破壞。此外, 該政府部門一直處理的「明日大嶼」填海發展項目一直被抨擊破壞大嶼山南部的海洋及自然生態, 部份自然保育團體批評這項計劃背棄國家領導人習近平提出「堅持人與自然和諧共生」的自然保育政策。
While the WWF Hong Kong criticized the Development Bureau’s irresponsibility in preserving the marine environment of Southern Lantau Island due to private land ownership in this area, according to their related report issued in September 2021. Worse still, their “Lantau Tomorrow Vision" reclamation project in Southern Lantau Island has been heavily criticized of damaging the marine and natural ecosystem in this rural area, some of the environmental conservation groups blamed that it has totally betrayed the harmonious natural conservation policies released by President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China.

至於規劃署的直屬上級 – 發展局, 對生態環境保育欠缺承擔和同理心: 為了開發新界西北地區的土地作住宅及工商業發展, 時任發長局局長黃偉綸提出透過城市規劃委員會, 申請放寬濕地緩衝區的地積比率限制, 不少環保團體如長春社、香港觀鳥會及世界自然基金會(香港)等憂慮此舉破壞濕地保育區的生態完整性, 摧毀候鳥及其他生物的居住環境, 並且令當地的環境污染問題大幅惡化。
While the Development Bureau, the superior of the Planning Department, has lesser responsibility and empathy over the wildlife and environmental conservation. Secretary for Development Mr Michael Wong Wai-lun has suggested to relax the plot ratio at wetland buffer areas in the North-western New Territories, in order to explore more land for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. Several environmental groups like the Conservancy Association, Hong Kong Bird Watching Society and the WWF (Hong Kong) warned that hastily increasing the plot ratio would cause damage to wetlands’ ecology and damaging the living environment of the migrating birds and other species living there.

8. 環境及生態局 / Environment and Ecology Bureau

儘管從其他決策局裡收回不少涉及動物權益的政府部門, 環境及生態局對涉及危害動物福祉罪行的態度欠缺承擔和有推卸責任之嫌: 坊間在本年初揭發油麻地一所食肆宰殺貓狗供顧客食用, 但未獲相關政府部門注視及取締; (最終漁護署在2024年2月下旬和警方聯手拘捕相關食肆東主及檢走部份肉食進行化驗)環境及生態局局長謝展寰辯稱這類事情理應由漁護署進行執法, 而不是經常巡查及檢控違規食肆的食環署, 令人質疑政府在執行《貓狗條例》時是否為涉及的政府部門製造推卸責任的灰色地帶。
The Environment and Ecology Bureau’s attitude towards animal rights and welfare became questionable although gaining the ownership of several departments involving in this area: A restaurant in Yaumatei has been reported of killing cats and dogs for food towards customers through the mass media, but they never have been prosecuted by the Government. (The AFCD and the Police Force finally arrested the restaurant owner and take some of the meat for further medical checks) Mr Tse Chin-wan, the Secretary of the Environment and Ecology Bureau, urged that its the responsibility of the AFCD to investigate this case, rather than the FEHD who are used to inspect and prosecuted the illegal restaurants – such response has reflected the Government allowing their department to shirk their responsiblities when implementing the Dogs and Cats Ordinance and other laws.

此外, 為了配合新界北部的長遠土地發展, 環境及生態局提出修訂《環評條例》的相關評估, 但是不少像長春社等的生態保育團體質疑環境及生態局的做法故意向發展商讓步, 令具生態價值的自然環境受到破壞。近期他們為發展局收回粉嶺高爾夫球場用地所作的環境評估報告錯漏百出, 未把在當地居住的野生動物, 包括同時被定性為瀕危物種及國家二級保護動物的斑頭鵂鶹, 記錄在相關報告在內, 令輿論對他們的專業水平予以嚴重質疑。
On the other hand, the Environment and Ecology Bureau proposed to revise the assessment standard of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance in order to coordinate with the development in the northern New Territories. Such proposals has arouse discontent from several environmental conservation groups like the Conservancy Association, as the revision will damage the natural environment with higher conservation value by giving way for further economic development. For example, their recent approval for the Development Bureau to take over the Fanling Golf Course for building housing estates have been criticized with full of mistakes, in which several wild animals, such as the Asian barred owlet – being classified as threatened species (internationally) and Class 2 Species under State Protection, haven’t been recorded in these reports; Their professional assessment in environmental conservation thus being doubted seriously by the public.

9. 保安局 / Security Bureau

儘管在2020年代初曾高調打擊虐待動物罪行及表揚動物福祉團體, 但保安局在杜絕偷獵在香港生活的野生動物則顯得有心無力; 例如不少在香港生活, 並被國際自然保護聯盟瀕危物種紅色名錄評級為「極危」的大頭龜在2023年初被頻繁偷獵並走私國內販賣; 面對不少保育團體的投訴和責難, 保安局認為這是漁護署主要負責的事項, 前者屬下的警務署及入境署等未就此作出任何主動的攔截或拘捕行動, 令相關罪行的破案率長期處於偏低的水平。
Besides the high-sounding manner in fighting animal abuse cases and appreciating animal welfare groups in early 2020s, the Security Bureau seems effortless in the termination of poaching wild animals living in Hong Kong. For example, the Platysternon megacephalum, which is defined as “Critically Endangered" by the IUCN, has been poached and smuggled into the Mainland China since early 2023; Facing criticisms from many natural conservation groups, the Security Bureau doubted that the AFCD should be mainly responsible for these troubles; As the Police Force and the Immigration Department never actively interfere or arrest the smugglers, thus making the detection rate of poaching cases remained lower than satisfactory.

10. 律政司 / Department of Justice

過往涉及嚴重不少虐待動物案件的判決偏於輕判, 成為不少動物福祉機構及動物權益壓力團體對政府不滿的根源之一。 不過香港的法律界對動物福祉組織們提出的判監十年等要求有所保留, 甚至予以反對; 他們認為現時《防止殘酷對待動物條例》的最高刑罰 – 罰款二十萬港元及判監禁3年, 比英國相關刑罰(最高為1年監禁)還要苛刻 ; 一旦把相關的最高刑罰提升至十年監禁, 將比澳洲、紐西蘭、愛爾蘭和北愛爾蘭等國(除了澳洲為4年監禁外, 其餘地區的最高刑罰為5年監禁)還要嚴苛, 有小題大做之嫌。 另外, 據部份政黨引述律政司的說法, 法官在處理虐待動物的案件時僅以過往的同類案例作參考, 而法官在這類案件裡偏向輕判, 甚至於拒絕立案審訊, 無法對虐待動物的兇徒及整個社會作出明確的警示作用。 因此, 當《防止殘酷對待動物條例》在2019年4月提出修訂諮詢時, 有動物權益團體及政黨要求政府督促律政司正視相關修訂, 對虐待動物的兇徒予以更嚴苛的懲罰; 但是因為隨後爆發的反修例暴動及新冠疫情, 《防止殘酷對待動物條例》的修例工作一直陷於膠著的狀態, 而虐待動物的案件也履有發生, 進而令一直要求修例的動物權益團體深感不滿。
Many animal rights pressure groups and animal welfare associations are discontent with the government due to imposing lighter sentence towards many serious animal abuse cases, urging the punishment of animal abuse should be increased to at least 10 years sentence. But the Department of Judiciary (DOJ) conserve or even oppose the demands from these groups, as the current punishment of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance – 3 years sentences and HK$200,000 penalty as the maximum – is already very harsh when comparing with Britain (1 year sentence as the maximum). It could be even harsher if the punishment is updated to 10 years imprisonment as what the animal rights groups demanded, which becomes harsher and more fussy than other countries and regions like Australia (4 years sentence as the maximum), New Zealand, Ireland and the Northern Ireland (5 years sentence as the maximum). According to the statement from the DOJ quoted by several politicians, the judges are used to reference from the previous cases when handling the animal abuse cases, in which they tend to impose lighter sentence towards the offenders or refuse to judge these cases wherever the causalities raised, thus misleading the offenders and the society about the serious legal consequences of animal abuse. When the government proposed to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance in early 2019, some animal pressure groups and the politicians urged the DOJ to pay attention over the updates seriously, and demanded the DOJ impose harsher punishment over the animal abusers. But the amendment of this Ordinance has been denied several years due to the riots associated with “anti-extradition law amendment bill" and the continuous breakout of COVID-19 since late 2019, several animal welfare groups became discontented over the ineffectiveness of the Government in preventing animal abuse cases.

以2020年2月中發生的深井虐殺動物案為例, (詳見此文) 儘管死傷寵物數量眾多, 但是律政司因證據不足宣佈不予起訴肇事的家庭, 並且在檢控期限結束後才向外公佈, 引起不少動物福祉團體, 包括愛護動物協會及非牟利獸醫組織等, 的強烈不滿, 部份泛民政黨夥拍關注事件的動物權益團體及寵物主人團體(包括領養在事件裡「劫後餘生」寵物的人士等)進行抗議甚至於申請司法覆核, 但最終仍不得要領。
For example, the JOD decided not prosecuting the pets manslaughter case happened in Sham Tseng during mid February 2020 (see this article) due to “lack of evidence", and they announced such decision after the expiry date of the prosecution period. The attempts of the JOD has raised much discontent from several animal welfare groups like the SPCA Hong Kong and HK Non-Profit Making Veterinary Clinic. Some of the animal welfare groups and pet owners (including the owners adapting the survived pets from this disaster) concerning this case, with the support from the pan-democratic parties, allied to protest the JOD over this case and even seek judicial appeal, but to no avail.

11. 區議會 / The District Board

不少區議員為了保住區內市民的選票支持, 經常向政府要求驅趕甚至於撲殺在區內居住的雀鳥、野生及流浪動物以保障所屬社區內的衛生和安全, 同時他們把虐待動物的行為歸咎於政府對涉嫌虐待動物的弱勢社群支援不足云云。
Many district board members usually urged the Government to drive away and even cull the wild and strayed animals in the community for hygiene and safety reasons; Some of them even expressed the reasons of animal abuse is related to the inadequate support to the underprivileged abusers… Their distortion are mostly sourced from the need to secure the community support through the annual District Board Elections.

12. 其他公營企業 / Other Public Enterprises

除了政府部門外, 不少公營企業對寵物及其飼養者採取歧視性的政策, 例如巴士及港鐵的營運者以保持車廂衛生為由, 透過罰款等手段禁止人們攜帶寵物乘搭交通工具 – 不少食肆及商店仿傚類似措施, 令攜同寵物的人士深感困擾。
Besides the Government departments mentioned above, many public enterprises introduce discriminatory policies towards the animals and pet owners. The MTR and several bus companies prohibited pets and their owners traveling their public transport for hygiene reasons by imposing fine towards them. Such policies have frustrated the pet owners as many restaurants and shops followed-suit.

至於上文提及的部份動物福祉機構, 可參考它們的官方網頁或Facebook專頁如下
1) 愛護動物協會 (SPCA): http://www.spca.org.hk
2) 香港兩棲及爬蟲協會 (HKHERP): http://www.hkherp.org.hk
3) NPV非牟利獸醫服務協會: http://www.npv.org.hk
4) 香港救援鳩鴿及雀鳥: http://www.facebook.com/HK.PigeonnDoveRescue/
5) 世界自然基金會(香港分會): www.wwf.org.hk
6) 毛守救援: https://www.pgrs.life/
7) 香港觀鳥會 (HKBWS): http://www.hkbws.org.hk/cms/
8) 嘉道理農場暨植物園 (KFBG): http://www.kfbg.org/tc/
9) 動物義工 貓狗之家: https://animalsvcltd.wixsite.com/animalsvolunteer

For further information about the following animal welfare groups mentioned in this article, please visit their official websites as follow:
1) The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Hong Kong (SPCA) : www.spca.org.hk
2) The Hong Kong Society of Herpetology Foundation (HKHERP): http://www.hkherp.org.hk/en
3) HK Non-Profit Making Veterinary Clinic: http://www.npv.org.hk (in Chinese only) 
4) Hong Kong Pigeon and Dove Rescue: http://www.facebook.com/HK.PigeonnDoveRescue/ (In Chinese only)
5) World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF, Hong Kong Branch) : www.wwf.org.hk
6) Paws Guardian Rescue Shelter (PGRS) : https://www.pgrs.life/en/
7) Hong Kong Bird Watching Society (HKBWS): http://www.hkbws.org.hk/cms/en/
8) Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden (KFBG): http://www.kfbg.org/en/
9) Animal Volunteers Charity Ltd: https://animalsvcltd.wixsite.com/animalsvolunteer (In Chinese only)