Hong Kong’s Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department said on September 2 that enforcement officers have statutory powers to take away dogs for investigation and identification when there are reasonable grounds to suspect they may be fighting dogs. The clarification followed several recent cases in which suspected fighting dogs were removed, including a mixed-breed female dog taken into custody while visiting an animal management centre for vaccination.
The department rejected claims that officers classify dogs after they merely “take one look”. It said the assessment is carried out by veterinarians, who consider features including the skull, ears, eyes, height, body length, build and body proportions.
The AFCD said identifying dogs by their physical characteristics is an internationally accepted approach that meets scientific and professional standards. It said the purpose of the identification process is to protect public and animal safety.
Reports said officers generally communicate with owners and usually obtain their consent before taking a dog away. Owners can appeal against a classification decision, although the department retains the legal power to remove a dog when there is reasonable suspicion.
The AFCD also said genetic testing is not currently the best way to identify fighting dogs. It said most dogs carry mixed-breed genes, while carrying relevant genetic traits does not necessarily lead to the physical build and appearance associated with fighting dogs. The department said it would monitor technological developments and consider using genetic testing as a supplementary tool in future.
Dogs identified as fighting dogs may still be kept if they have been neutered, have valid proof of sterilisation and are licensed, subject to safety conditions. These include wearing a specified identification collar, having a microchip, wearing a muzzle in public places and being securely handled on a lead no longer than 1.5 metres.
The department’s clarification did not set out the final identification results or handling arrangements for the dogs recently taken away. Reports also did not provide details of the appeal deadline, the full review procedure or any publicly available written assessment criteria.