Feral cattle and buffalo that roam Hong Kong are remnants of the city’s agricultural industry. It is generally agreed that these ungulates were employed as drought animals in the 1970s and abandoned when they were no longer needed, and the population survived and continued to reproduce. While there are conflicting general public views towards these animals, there is little data collected about them.

In this instalment of Tell Me More, HKALPO interviews two leading researchers who are making incredible inroads with their animal welfare and health research, including on the topic of feral cattle and buffalo:-

• Dr. Alan McElligott: Associate Professor of Animal Behaviour and Welfare at the Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong

• Dr. Kate Flay: Assistant Professor in Production Animal Health

Why Animal Welfare Law? While it is a valid question - it is one that is also easily answered. Humans have countless interactions with non-human animals. The types of human-animal relationships are multifarious, and therefore the regulation and control of such relationships - animal law - should concern us all.

Many of us in Hong Kong are concerned about the protection of animals, and continue to advocate for and support legislative changes to existing law that will hopefully strengthen and secure better animal welfare in Hong Kong.

Aaron Tong looks into the brief history of animal welfare law in Hong Kong, showing us the genesis of animal protection legislation, how the laws have evolved over time, with a comparison of the current laws with other common law jurisdictions.

As the trend for animal advocacy continues to grow internationally, will we see Hong Kong following suit? Or will animal welfare legislation continue to fall behind the rest of the world.

Courtesy of Aaron Tong.

HKALPO was launched in March 2020 with the aim of bringing together members of the community who have a shared passion for animals, to work together to improve their welfare and lives. It sought to achieve this by advocating for their interests through the legal system by securing more thorough and protective laws and better enforcement of existing animal welfare law.

Since then, members of HKALPO have helped published over 150 animal related news and blog articles, which has helped attract animal law and welfare experts from all around the word to become part of HKALPO.

In this instalment of Tell Me More, we interview founder and barrister Kim J McCoy, asking him why he started HKALPO, what he hopes to achieve in the future and why we should care about animal law.

Thai Law enforcement agencies were able to successfully stop a case of illegal smuggling of rhino horns into Thailand using digital intelligence technology. Investigators were able to trace one of the smugglers flying into Suvarnabhumi Airport via their cellphone, which then led them to finding an active member of the Hydra Syndicate - involved in the smuggling of elephant ivory, rhino horn and tiger parts to dealers in China and Vietnam.

Courtesy of Nicole Liang.

Illegal wildlife trade continues to worryingly gain traction on the internet. A large number of websites and various social media platforms have become avenues where wildlife goods are offered, often with suspect origins. Not only is the breadth of online platforms concerning, but so too the wide range of species and items openly advertised and readily available for purchase at the click of a button.

The methods needed to monitor, regulate and combat illegal wildlife trade online are vastly different from those employed to deal with “traditional” wildlife trafficking, and there are different challenges in terms of tools and capacity.

Learn more about how social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram are, despite their pledge to remove illegal wildlife content, actually accelerating trafficking, as well as the emergence of groups dedicated to exposing illegal wildlife trade on social media.

Courtesy of Audrey O’Young.

This case arose from a sale by receivers of a commercial fishery in Lancashire which belonged to the Respondents. The fishery included nine gravel lakes which stocks of fish were kept for angling. The sale documentation did not make express reference to the fish stocks. The Respondent claimed that it retained ‘ownership’ of the fish and brought a conversion claim.

The case required the Court of Appeal to analyse the nature and extent of the proprietary rights in the live fish. The Court noted that the point before it had never had to be decided in a reported case, and the judgments include a detailed consideration of authorities from England, Ireland, Canada and the US, principles of Roman Law and the commentaries of Bracton, Grotius and Blackstone.