Advertisement
Advertisement

Animal welfare laws 'seriously outdated'

Lizards and snakes kept in cartons the size of a lunch box; dogs in cages where they can barely turn around; tortoises piled in buckets with nowhere to climb out and get dry.

These are some of the conditions under which animals are being kept in Hong Kong - and they are perfectly legal under the city's 'seriously outdated' animal welfare laws and regulations. The examples were given by researchers who conducted a two-year study comparing Hong Kong's rules with those in force elsewhere.

The study by the University of Hong Kong law faculty's centre for comparative and public law - partly funded by the government's Central Policy Unit - concluded that neither an anti-cruelty law enacted in 1935 nor licensing conditions for pet shops are up to overseas standards.

The government has yet to set minimum legal cage sizes for pet shops that keep animals but are not involved in breeding, associate professor of law Amanda Whitfort said.

As long as the animals can 'move freely' in a cage the operators will not be prosecuted, she said.

In Australia, the government has set minimum legal cage sizes for specific animal species such as dogs, cats and rabbits. The law also forbids shops from keeping pets for more than four weeks.

Yet in Hong Kong, animal traders are free to keep pets for as long as they want. They are also not required to walk the dogs they keep for sale.

Even if a trader is convicted of an animal cruelty offence, the Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation Department does not have the power to revoke the licence. Also, the researchers point out, no major updates have been made to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance since it was enacted seven decades ago.

Currently an animal which has not suffered an overt act of cruelty cannot be assisted, Whitfort said. 'Authorities must stand by and wait for the animal's situation to deteriorate to the level of prosecutable cruelty before they can do anything,' she said. Such an arrangement fails to help animals which are at risk, but not yet 'harmed'.

It is not possible for animal groups to help animals at risk unless they show clear signs of illness, Tony Ho Tse-tong, chief superintendent of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' inspectorate team, said.

If a dog is left unattended in a house or car, the group has no power to break into private property and save it immediately - unless it is abnormally dirty, ill or proven to be abandoned for days, he said.

In Britain, authorities can issue notices to pet owners which require them to improve a pet's condition, Whitfort said. In 99 per cent of cases, the owners fulfilled the requirement and would not be prosecuted.

'Modern animal welfare laws don't just protect animals from suffering. They prevent it,' she said.

There are few prosecutions for animal cruelty in Hong Kong, and offenders usually receive sentences well below the maximum, which does not send a strong warning, she said. An offender can face up to three years' jail, but usually the sentence is shorter than six weeks. The average fine imposed is about HK$1,200.

Government authorities received 157 reports of animal abuse last year. Nine people were prosecuted, according to the Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation Department.

Veterinarian Dr Pauline Taylor described the legal protection for animal welfare in Hong Kong as 'very basic', even though it had made some progress.

She said pet shops were only required to provide space for an animal to stand in and turn around, and there were inadequate resources to check on pet shops.

The department and the Food and Health Bureau would study the report, a government spokeswoman said.

Lacking bite

A review of 10 ordinances in Hong Kong related to animal welfare found outdated legislation

As of 2006, 286,300 households in Hong Kong kept pets, of which:

48.4 % were dogs

22.3 % cats

29.3 % other pets such as rabbits and tortoises

There were 317,024 licensed dogs in 2009 compared with 67,098 in 2000

In HK

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance Penalty is based on Britain's Protection of Animals Act 1911 (which in the UK has been replaced with a new law enacted in 2006)

* enacted in 1935

* definition of cruelty outdated

Penalty

In 2006, HK$5,000 fine and six months' jail increased to HK$200,000 fine and three years' jail

In Singapore

The Animals and Birds Act 2002 is a comprehensive law that covers animal welfare, licensing of pet shops, regulation of veterinary clinics, importation of animals and the management of livestock

* enacted in 1965, but has been revised in 1970, 1985 and 2002

* clearly defines acts of cruelty under eight subclauses

Penalty

If found guilty, a person faces a fine of not more than S$10,000 (HK$56,000) or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or both

SOURCES: UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG, SPCA, DIRECTOR OF AUDIT, AGRI-FOOD AND VETERINARY AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE

Post