Tell Me More: Why There Is No Mercy In Release.

‘Mercy release’ is a practice often associated with Buddha’s Birthday (19th May this year), although it occurs throughout the year. In Hong Kong, it is often associated with the release of turtles – specifically red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans) – though other animals are also released, such as the Chinese bullfrog, birds, and fish.

The practice is viewed as an act of compassion and is believed to bring good karma and good fortune. Although this tradition is rooted in good intentions, scientists and conservationists have highlighted the problematic nature of modern mercy release. Most pertinently, they include potential harm suffered by the released animals, ecological impacts, and public health concerns.

Audrey O’Young of HKALPO had the opportunity to interview three experts to gain more insight into mercy release, the risks the practice carries, and what can be done to address the issue. Our three experts include:

Dr. Caroline Dingle – a Senior Lecturer in the School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science at The University of Hong Kong;
Dr. Yik Hei Sung – Assistant Professor in the Science Unit at Lingnan University; and
Mr. Paul Crow – Senior Conservation Officer in the Fauna Conservation Department at Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden.

Mr. Crow has happened upon mercy release sites first-hand, immediately after a release. Could you describe the experience to us?

Mr. Crow:

We come across the sites by chance and have also spoken to people involved [in releasing the animals] and tried to convince them not to [release the animals]. It’s been effective once or twice. But otherwise, we’ve ended up with a stream full of turtles and frogs.

In other sites, like Tai Mo Shan, we’ve arrived [for other purposes] within hours– if not closer to immediately after – of the release events of birds. You see empty cages dumped about, and baby birds – pre-fledged, meaning they couldn’t fly or feed themselves – on the carpark floor, trying to dodge other squashed birds which have been run over by the bus that [transported] the people involved in the release. From an age perspective, it’s totally unsuitable.

Colleagues have also shown up in Tai Po not long after release, and you see freshwater turtles and Chinese bullfrogs drifting in the sea. They’re in shock – dazed and stunned, and slowly dying from being released in a totally inappropriate environment. There are also boats that take people to release freshwater carp, and we’ve seen [the released carp] be fished by different boat and taken back to the market to re-sell.

When you encounter groups intending to release animals, what are they like when encouraged not to release the animals? Do they ignore you? Or give a passive response and release the animals anyway?

Mr. Crow:

You’re right – we’ve gotten both types of responses. There have been a couple of times our [KFBG] colleagues have confronted a group holding bags of animals on the other side of the road. [Our colleagues] had to stay there [at the intended release site] and wait until [the people intending to release the animals] gave up and drove away. But that probably meant they would’ve gone to another spot close by. They’re clearly determined to be doing release or believe strongly [in the practice].

But we’ve also had some success speaking to [and educating] Buddhist groups in the past. They promised they would go back and discourage others from doing it, but it’s a very individual situation and depends on the person’s mindset.

Why are turtles the ‘poster child’ of mercy release?

Dr. Sung:

There is a tendency [for people involved] to get the most abundant species. Turtles – red-eared sliders especially – are very cheap. You can get them for $10 or $20. They are also heavily farmed in mainland China and easily brought into Hong Kong – both legally and illegally.

Mr. Crow:

Hong Kong is a massive wildlife trading hub. It’s very easy to import animals, and scarily, where live animals are imported, there’s no requirement to state purpose of bringing the animals into Hong Kong on the permit. It’s too easy to bring animals in for mercy release, and huge numbers are coming in each year.

Dr. Dingle:

Birds are also a popular animal to release. There has been a switch [following past outbreaks of] Avian Influenza, but often birds which are in bad condition are sold for very cheap [and purchased for release]. You can see the nice [birds] in individual cages, and there will be one cage containing multiple birds, which might have damaged feathers or something similar.

The term ‘invasive species’ is frequently used to describe red-eared sliders. What makes them invasive, and how is that different from being classified as a ‘non-native’ species?

Dr. Dingle:

This is an important question. There can be non-native, introduced species that have little impact on the new habitat. Most animals that are introduced [through mercy release] do not become established [as they] die out after a while. To take this one step further, [a high percentage] of released animals will die; studies that track mercy release show almost all of them will die. This means that the people releasing the animals don’t accomplish their goal.

Something is an ‘invasive’ species if it has a negative impact on the ecology in the area where it becomes established. [For example the invasive species may] out compete or predate on native species, which makes it harder for the native species to live there. Red-eared sliders are invasive. One of the issues with them is they are so adaptable in a new [environment]. The sheer number of red-eared sliders has a big impact as they create competition for food and resources.

AOY: Note that in Hong Kong, red-eared sliders are not legally recognised as ‘invasive’. Rather, they are an ‘exotic’ species.[1]

How does mercy release – particularly of red-eared sliders – impact native ecosystems?

Dr. Dingle:

[In addition to the aforementioned issues], a concern in mercy release is [where] the animals don’t die immediately, they may establish a population. This could have ecological impacts on local species. If [the released animals] already exist locally, there is a risk of genetic mixing, which can have an impact on the local population.

Genetic mixing can be bad or good, depending on the situation. Sometimes we do it on purpose (eg conservation breeding) to increase the genetic variation within a population which is often related to a species’ ability to adapt (more genetic variation = more raw material for evolution to act on). But it can have a negative impact on native populations for a couple of reasons. First, if the native population has a local adaptation to its environment, genes from another population could lead to a loss of that adaptation. Second, if the two populations are very genetically different, then if two birds from different populations interbreed, their offspring could be less fit than if both parents were from the same population.

Mr. Crow:

Every aspect of mercy release has a threat to the native population … In wildlife rehab, one of the questions we have to ask when we receive the animal, unless we know exactly where we came from, is whether we know the origin. DNA fingerprinting studies [of the animals can be done], as well as isotope studies. But it’s not that easy to do without having a large sample batch to compare them to.

The easiest way to see the risks [of genetic mixing] is to look at the human race. We’re all one species, but we’re all adapted to different environments. For example, the Malayan box turtle (Cuora amboninensis) [is present throughout South-East Asia]. As you move down the range, the [same species of] animal has different tolerances or predispositions, or has built-up immunity to diseases or parasite adaptations in their part of the range.

Dr. Sung:

There are not many direct studies showing the directive negative impacts caused by mercy release of red-eared sliders. But studies overseas [e.g., Thailand, California, Mainland China] show they probably have negative impacts on native populations, especially towards native turtles.

Part of my research looks into whether red-eared sliders should be removed from the wild environment. But a real negative impact must be shown before they can be removed. This is an example of where conservation and animal rights conflicts. My research is trying to document and quantify the negative impact of red-eared sliders into the wild. Although we haven’t found anything of particular concern, we study their diet through stable isotope analysis and found that they prey upon native organisms. It means their diet probably overlaps with another native species, known as the Reeves terrapin, which is endangered. That provides indirect evidence to show the red-eared sliders may have negative impact on native species if there are limited food sources.

Can mercy release create risks that affect people?

Dr. Dingle:

Certainly. Birds are a good example: some of the birds may be carrying avian flu, and potentially introduce zoonotic disease into a population. [Animals] may bring in different diseases which are not necessarily adapted to Hong Kong. It has effects on people and wildlife.

Dr. Dingle leads the Wildlife Forensics Group at HKU: How can forensics be used to aid our understanding of the impacts of mercy release?

Dr. Dingle:

‘Conservation forensics’ is a cobbled-together term, [where] forensic tools are used to answer questions related to conservation. For example, in research applying to wildlife trade, we use genetics to identify what species has been involved and determine their origin. We also use stable isotope analysis on turtles, which is chemical analysis of animal tissue, and the chemicals that will be present varies depending on the diet of the species. We can assess whether the species is captive or wild caught, and more importantly, the legality of the trade will depend on whether it’s bred [in captivity] or caught [in the wild].

AOY: Dr. Dingle and Prof. Sung use stable isotope analysis (as discussed by Prof. Sung above) to look at the diet of red-eared sliders and gather evidence that they are invasive and should be recognised as invasive.

How is mercy release different from wildlife conservation?

Dr. Sung:

There are two major differences. First is the purpose. Mercy release is for the good of the person, and not for the animals, [whereas] wildlife conservation is mainly for the animal. In mercy release, people [may not] understand the [needs of the] species and release them wherever. For example, releasing freshwater turtles into the sea, and coral reef fish into the pier. There is no consideration of the biology and ecology.

Second difference is the source. Wildlife conservation utilises captive populations, or we capture them from the wild without harming the wild population – or where the population is threatened. One thing that is not stressed [in discussing mercy release] is beside ecological impact, [mercy release] creates a demand to hunt the animal. This links to the message that we can educate people on the fact that mercy release creates a demand. Animals that can be living freely in the wild will be captured because of your will to release them.

Mercy release as it is currently conducted poses a huge threat to animal welfare. Is there any chance mercy release could be used as a tool to assist in conservation of threatened species?[2]

Dr. Dingle:

That’s an interesting idea, and managed properly, it could work. [It could] advertise other ways that people could achieve the merit aspect – either through controlled release or by promoting other activities that benefit the welfare of animals. It [would be] chang[ing] the narrative to achieving merit in a way that is beneficial to wildlife. But there are some dangers still, as it might glorify release practices, and some people might think that they will [release animals] on their own. Interviews of turtle owners in Hong Kong who have released red-eared sliders thought they were doing the turtles a benefit.

Dr. Sung:

We have thought about this, but there is a long way to go for sure. Ultimately, people have good will for mercy release. [People involved in mercy release] may have lots of resources and spend a lot of money, for example, to release a sea turtle. When they learn that mercy release is not necessarily good, and money can be spent somewhere else, [their] resources and will can be used to support conservation that is more scientifically researched.

AOY: Dr. Dingle in her interview also highlighted a study[3] where researchers set up a website for individuals who were in search of exotic pets. The website asked questions and matched individuals with their “perfect pet”. But subsequent to the questionnaire, the individuals were shown information relating to different aspects of purchasing the animal, such as conservation and welfare impacts, economic considerations, and health risks. It was found that the conservation message had little impact on whether the individual would continue to purchase the exotic animal; conversely, messages relaying economic considerations and health risks did have an impact.

What difficulties are involved in rehabilitation, rehoming, and re-releasing the animals from mercy release?

Dr. Sung:

The major challenge is the number of animals released, which is huge. [This competes with] the limited resources, such as space available for rehabilitation. Even in the NGOs who are doing this kind of rehabilitation, the welfare conditions may not be perfect due to limited space. [This means that] in reality, volunteers need to prioritise, and the animals are sometimes euthanised.

Rehoming is also not that easy. Even if the released animals are released, [it requires] making sure that the persons adopting the animal are not going to release it again, as the effort will be wasted if they do. The number of animals released also affects rehoming, as they cannot all be adopted and kept forever.

I think this identifies the central issue: limiting the source of animals. More aggressive ways may be adopted to limit the import. For example, we could follow Taiwan, and prohibit the release of animals into the wild. [Another issue] is the lack of enforcement [of laws] in Hong Kong.

We also asked Mr. Crow: (1) whether the lack of resources, facilities, or expertise to rehabilitate, rehome and release is the key issue; and (2) whether KFBG are involved in rehabilitation or release of mercy release animals.

Mr. Crow:

Money, time and resources are better spent preventing [mercy release] from happening in the first place. Money should be put into educating the public and changing the law to ensure [mercy release] is illegal in the first place. Hong Kong is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity,[4] we are duty bound to conserve and protect biodiversity in Hong Kong.

A lot of animals bred are used for food trade [such as Chinese bullfrogs]. Trying to save all of the animals would be like trying to save all of the chickens from a farm. [Rehabilitation and release of mercy release animals] has never been a really strong focus [of KFBG. Even if KFBG rescued released animals] we wouldn’t be able to do anything with them. They are market animals, which are not re-releasable. We also don’t know their genetic history, and ethics and professional standards would prevent us from releasing them into the wild. [KFBG are] not involved, but we sometimes collect [released animals] from an area just outside the farm. The only option for those animals – sometimes 40 turtles, and 30 to 40 frogs – is euthanasia. We intervene with that particular site because it affects the stream that runs through KFBG and endangers the [animals and ecosystems at KFBG]. It also puts the lives of critically endangered big-headed turtles at risk.

Our Observations

Currently, the only legal protection that may be enforced against those found participating in mercy release is under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169).[5] Individuals may be sentenced to a maximum of three years imprisonment and a $200,000 fine. However, this has not been enforced as of May 2021, with no cases to evidence any prosecutorial action taken against individuals participating in such a cruel and risky practice, albeit with good intentions. A conviction under Cap. 169 would also be difficult to prove once the animals are released, and more often than not, the sites are not happened upon until the releasers have left.

Although Cap. 169 is currently being amended, and Mr. Crow hopes to see the duty of care aspect used in cases against mercy releasers, he also correctly highlights that it is not the intention of Cap. 169 or its redraft to “crack-down” on mercy release. A standalone law, such as that implemented in 2014 in Taiwan to ban unauthorised release of animals into the wild, would be necessary to reduce and/or prevent mercy release practices from continuing in Hong Kong.

Prof. Sung and Mr. Crow both highlighted the importance of a central issue in mercy release: limiting the source of animals by implementing more aggressive rules and regulations to importing animals into Hong Kong. In particular, Mr. Crow highlighted above that the import permit has no requirement to state purpose of bringing the animal into Hong Kong. Though imposing such a requirement may not necessarily eliminate the mercy release practice all together, it will create additional hurdles for those who want to profit from the practice.

Our experts all highlighted the importance of education and increasing awareness of the risks inherent in mercy release. Although SPCA, KFBG and AFCD have campaign efforts aimed towards educating the general public, it requires more commitment from the government. In a similar manner to the study Dr. Dingle mentioned in her interview, highlighting the health risks attached to mercy release may be an approach that would sway Hongkongers away from the practice or rather, to donate their money and good-will towards any program with conservation objectives.

Though Prof. Sung has highlighted public awareness and the overall situation has improved in the ten years he has been paying attention to the issue of mercy release, more needs to be done in a legislative sense to afford animals protection from mercy release or from being farmed and imported for the purposes of mercy release. Educating the public – the younger generation in particular – on the potential environmental impacts of the practice should come hand in hand with a law that prevents persons from participating and profiting from mercy release.

Once again, many thanks to Mr. Crow, Dr. Dingle, and Prof. Sung for their invaluable time and expertise.