LettersFocusing on ‘bad’ dogs will not do Hong Kong any good
Readers discuss the state of Hong Kong’s animal laws, and whether a ‘no-kill’ mandate for animals is the most humane approach
The occurrence of two canine incidents in the past week or so has placed mongrels at the centre of debates. This is not the first time we have had this conversation.
In autumn 1971, a 10-year-old left her home on the Tsz Wan Shan Resettlement Estate and was later found lifeless at the foot of a hill. Echoing popular opinion and turning a deaf ear to a father’s suspicions that his child may have been murdered, the authorities concluded that she was mauled to death by seven guard dogs. All seven dogs were put down, notably much ahead of autopsy results and without a formal investigation.
The unfortunate incident would soon be followed by the hardening of Hong Kong’s relationship to dogs. Along with a series of social reforms to make Hong Kong a more liveable city, an anti-dog campaign was launched to eradicate the dog “nuisance”. In 1974 alone, at least 15,000 dogs – many of which were mongrels – were destroyed.
In strengthening Hong Kong’s animal laws, policymakers need to be aware that there is no one-size-fits-all fix to human-canine relations. We have to understand that not all dogs want to be “rescues”. No dog is a “good dog” all the time. No dog should be a “bad dog” for being stray, angry or mongrel. What makes one dog happy is not guaranteed to make another dog yap in joy.
Boxing mongrels into the anthropocentric label of “bad” will not lead us to a sustainable and healthy coexistence with our canine residents. “Mongrel” is not a behavioural diagnosis, just as “rescue” is not a guarantee that a dog can safely enter every home or facility.