I WOULD very much like to ascertain just exactly what role the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries plays in Hong Kong, with regard to animal rights? As I understand it, it is the department's responsibility to act as a watchdog where illegal trade practices involving animals are concerned, and to ensure that current legislation governing protection of animals is adequate. Yet the public is being made constantly aware, through the media, of on-going malpractices and cases of cruelty that only receive scant attention from the department, but are, in fact, flourishing within the territory.
Vets throughout Hong Kong are reporting an alarming increase in the number of sick and stricken animals bought from pet shops. Dr Barry Bousfield, senior veterinary officer in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, appears to refute this evidence, and has been reported as saying that existing legislation governing conditions in pet shops in Hong Kong is sufficient, in spite of widespread and mounting criticism of both the shops and the conduct of those who run them. A campaign has been initiated (by a group of vets) to force the Government to introduce legislation that will command harsher penalties, and to raise the minimum age of puppies imported into Hong Kong from eight to 13 weeks. This will, however, require 100 per cent support and backing fromthe Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, if the present unhappy situation is to be redressed.
Dr Bousfield also maintains that the task of educating the public in the care of pet ownership should be the responsibility of the RSPCA. Since the RSPCA (a charitable organisation) spent some $62,000 over and above its allotment from the Government ($25,000) in the field of public education last year, it is fair to assume that it is doing as much as it can, and that the Government is most certainly not fulfilling its obligations. And then, on October 20 during the evening news on television, we were informed that, in spite of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries maintains that it has controlled any possible market in Hong Kong for the illegal sale of rhino horn. In fact, sales are increasing, and rhino horn is available from a large number of pharmacies throughout the territory.
The tax-paying public of Hong Kong is entitled to an explanation from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries as to its entire stance on animal rights, not only now, but in the foreseeable future.
E. HOGAN Happy Valley
