With the height of summer fast approaching, and a lack of public beaches in Hong Kong permitting canine companions, ‘pet pools’ have risen in popularity as an outlet for owners to socialise, pamper, and provide temporary respite for their dogs.

However, in response to several incidents of pet illness and death during and after swimming sessions, Chief Executive Gilly Wong Fung-han and Vice-Chairman Victor Lui of the Consumer Council commenced an investigation into businesses advertising such facilities. The council’s report flagged industry-specific issues concerning the welfare of animals left in the care of luxury service providers.

In total twelve businesses were surveyed; seven of which offer indoor, rehabilitation-focused heated pool experiences, and five with outdoor swimming facilities. A general lack of transparency regarding the depth, temperature, and hygienic upkeep of pools was identified, reducing consumer autonomy to make decisions tailored to the unique needs of their pet.

Over-crowding is another issue cited by the council, especially in outdoor self-service ‘fun’ pools. Risk of disease transmission is significantly increased when dogs are in close-quarters, yet the vetting process for pets to participate is summary in nature. Moreover, it primarily relies on the honesty and integrity of pet owners to disclose vaccination records and symptoms of illness. 

Finally, there is ambiguity over the credentials of facility staff. While requiring all staff to complete a Pet First-Aid Training Course (such as those offered by St. John Ambulance and the SPCA Hong Kong) would undoubtedly increase the public legitimacy of a business, there are no industry-wide regulations to this effect. As a result, caretakers may be ill-equipped to deal with a medical emergency should it arise in the course of activities.

If injury or death does occur, the options for legal redress are limited. Under Hong Kong law pets “are considered property, like a car or couch” (Hong Kong Lawyer). This means owners can only pursue civil proceedings rather than criminal. In a further attempt to evade liability for negligently caused death or injury of pets, many service providers include exemption or limitation clauses in consent forms signed by owners. While these clauses will only be executed if deemed fair and reasonable by the court, there have been no successful prosecutions of business operators to date. This signals a greater misalignment between the de-facto family member status of pets in the eyes of owners, and their delegated position at law in Hong Kong. 

Changing attitudes towards the legal rights of pets are discernible in other jurisdictions including California, Alaska, and Singapore. In New York, Senate Bill S4248 affords pets the same rights as children in divorce settlements. Yet Hong Kong seems reticent to follow suit for now. 

With the current lack of industry regulation, responsibility for animal wellbeing at pet pools continues to lie with pet owners themselves. Increased pressure on luxury pet business managers to freely publicise detailed information about their facilities and staff is necessary. In the meantime, owners are urged to conduct comprehensive preparatory research and supervise pets during water-based activities where possible. 

Courtesy of: Saskia Sinha

References: Consumer Council Hong Kong; South China Morning Post; Community Legal Information Centre (CLIC) HKU; Hong Kong Lawyer.