The Dual Significance of Hong Kong’s New Pigeon Feeding Ban

Government authorities have unveiled a plan commencing in August to prohibit the feeding of feral pigeons in Hong Kong. The chief rationale provided is that such activities threaten the survival and wellbeing of pigeons due to an increased risk of disease and parasite transmission. The move will extend existing provisions under section 17C of the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap.170), which already forbids the feeding of monkeys, boars, and tree sparrows, to encompass pigeons.

Violators will face a maximum penalty of a HK$10,000 fine and one year of imprisonment upon conviction (per section 18). Additionally, offenders could be handed an immediate on-site fixed fine of HK$5,000.

Previously, actions against pigeon feeding could only be pursued through the Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulation and the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness and Obstruction) Ordinance (Cap.570). This classification associated pigeons with pests, but the new regulations adopt a more animal-centric tone, aiming first to deter harmful behaviour to the birds, and secondarily, public health and nuisance issues complained of by humans. This is particularly evident given Cap.170’s short explanatory introduction stating its intention “to make provision for the conservation of wild animals, and for purposes connected therewith.” Individuals holding pigeons in captivity for domestic or special purposes may be issued permits exempting them from the ban. However, not everyone has welcomed the changes.

The South China Morning Post reports that public policy experts have called the penalties one might incur under the ban “disproportional” to the charge. This is especially so in light of seemingly innocuous actions motivated by compassion now deemed transgressions, such as children sharing snacks with pigeons. Nonetheless, authorities remain steadfast, insisting that the benefits of the ban outweigh any perceived adverse impact.

It has been argued convincingly that the legislative amendment lacks efficacy without reinforcement in the form of public education (Kris Hartley, HKFP, 11 June 2023). Certainly, it seems clear that without widespread understanding and acceptance of the rationale behind the ban, it may be challenging to achieve the desired outcomes. Feeding pigeons is a common activity in many urban areas and is often seen as a way for people, especially children and the elderly, to engage with nature and urban wildlife. The prohibition will necessarily reduce such interactions, therefore policymakers must consider how to balance the need for public health and animal welfare with the benefits of maintaining lively and engaging public spaces.

Comparing Hong Kong’s approach with that of other cities provides insights into alternative strategies for management. Some jurisdictions have implemented public education campaigns, pigeon contraception programs, and designated feeding areas to control pigeon populations without imposing harsh penalties. Evaluating the successes and challenges of these methods could inform more balanced and effective policies in Hong Kong.

Overall, the new ban on feeding pigeons in Hong Kong represents a significant shift in urban wildlife management policy. The scheduled amendment reclassifies pigeons from pests to wild animals deserving of protection and allocated conservation resources, aligning them with other species covered by section 17 of Cap.170. However, balancing the need for stringent measures with fairness, public engagement, and the preservation of vibrant public spaces will be key to the policy’s success, and it remains to be seen how actively it will be enforced in practice.

Courtesy of: Saskia Sinha