The Society is deeply concerned about the series of dog attack incidents that have occurred since mid-August. Within a span of approximately five days, at least five related incidents took place in Hong Kong, resulting in one human fatality, the deaths of

Background

The Society is deeply concerned about the series of dog attack incidents that have occurred since mid-August. Within a span of approximately five days, at least five related incidents took place in Hong Kong, resulting in one human fatality, the deaths of two dogs and one cat, and injuries to two other people. These include a large mixed-breed dog that lost control in a public area in Yuen Long and killed two small dogs, as well as a fatal attack at a licensed pet hotel in Ta Kwu Ling that claimed the life of a 33-year-old woman. The latter case involved a dog microchipped as a “mongrel” but actually carrying fighting-dog bloodlines. This is the third fatal dog attack on a human in Hong Kong in 33 years (the previous two occurred in 1994 and 1996).

According to publicly available data from the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), between 2023 and 2025 the Department initiated a total of 679 prosecutions related to dog attacks (including attacks on people or animals): 258 cases in 2023, 215 in 2024, and 206 in 2025. Currently, only 29 licensed “fighting dogs” and 18 “known dangerous dogs” are registered across Hong Kong. These figures show that attacks continue to occur under the existing regulatory regime, and the recurrence of fatal tragedies highlights clear systemic gaps.

As a professional organisation focused on pet nutrition and animal welfare, the Society has long been concerned with public safety and responsible pet ownership in the context of human–animal co-existence. We now analyse the issues from multiple perspectives and put forward concrete recommendations.

I. Problem Analysis from Different Perspectives

1. Public Safety Perspective

The occurrence of multiple serious incidents within five days indicates that the risk of large dogs and high-risk mixed-breed dogs losing control in public places remains significant. Ordinary members of the public, children, the elderly, and other pet owners lack effective protection when sudden attacks occur.

2. Owner Responsibility and Competence Perspective

The 679 prosecutions demonstrate that some owners are unable to effectively control large dogs or dogs with high-risk characteristics. Existing legislation lacks specific requirements on “how dogs should be properly controlled,” resulting in situations where owners hold licences yet still lack adequate practical control ability.

3. Source Identification Perspective

In the fatal case, the dog was microchipped as a “mongrel” but in fact carried fighting-dog bloodlines. This exposes the limitation of the current registration system, which relies primarily on visual assessment. Mixed-breed dogs are easily misclassified, allowing high-risk animals to escape appropriate regulation.

4. Boarding and Commercial Premises Perspective

Current licence conditions for licensed pet hotels and training centres focus mainly on facility standards. They lack specific requirements regarding how staff should safely handle high-risk dogs, restrictions on single-person handling, and emergency response procedures, thereby increasing the chance of accidents.

5. Insufficient Deterrence of Penalties and Inadequate Victim Protection

Existing penalties provide clearly insufficient deterrence for serious cases. The maximum fine for a general uncontrolled bite is only about HK$10,000. Even for large dogs found off-leash, the maximum is only HK$25,000 and three months’ imprisonment. For more serious provisions under the Dangerous Dogs Regulation, the maximum is only HK$50,000 and six months’ imprisonment. These levels fail to reflect the seriousness of cases involving severe injury or death. At the same time, victims (including injured persons or owners of attacked pets) often struggle to obtain timely and adequate compensation.

6. Illegal Smuggling / Unlawful Import of Animals Perspective

Illegally smuggled pets often enter without quarantine, have unknown origins, and may carry high-risk or fighting-dog bloodlines. Once these animals enter Hong Kong through unlawful channels, they can easily bypass the existing registration and control systems, directly increasing public safety risks. Current penalties and enforcement against illegal pet smuggling lack sufficient deterrent effect, allowing the problem to persist.

II. Specific Recommendations

1. Strengthening Breed Verification and Registration Systems

• Require registered veterinary surgeons to conduct professional assessments of dogs suspected of having fighting-dog characteristics, large muscular builds, or disputed appearance, and where necessary use DNA testing to verify bloodline proportions, with mandatory updating of microchip records.
• Improve the microchip database to require accurate recording of breed/mixed-breed information, previous incident history, and ownership changes, and strengthen verification at the points of import, breeding, and transfer.
• Conduct regular spot-checks on the breed information of registered large dogs to close loopholes of false or inaccurate reporting.

2. Mandatory Practical Control Training as an Owner Responsibility

• Require first-time owners of large dogs (weighing 20 kg or above) or dogs with high-risk characteristics to complete a government-recognised practical control course.
• Course content should focus on practical skills: reliable leash control, basic obedience commands (sit, stay, recall), public-space management techniques, and how to handle situations where a dog refuses commands or shows excitement/aggression.
• Only after completing the course and passing a practical assessment may the relevant licence be formally issued or renewed. This measure can directly improve owners’ actual control ability and reduce accidents caused by inadequate control.

3. Raising Safety Standards for Boarding and Related Commercial Premises

• Revise licence conditions for animal boarding establishments to clearly require:
• Staff must receive basic training in behaviour management and safe handling;
• High-risk dogs must not be handled by a single person;
• Standard procedures for kennelling/removing dogs and emergency response guidelines must be established;
• Premises must maintain adequate staffing and safety equipment.
• For establishments offering dog training or boarding services, introduce regular audits and mandatory incident reporting requirements to ensure operations meet safety standards.

4. Significantly Strengthening Fines and Penalties — The Society regards this as a necessary and priority measure

Existing penalties are clearly too low to effectively deter negligence and non-compliance. The Society strongly recommends:

• Substantially raising maximum fines: For cases in which a dog loses control and causes serious injury to a person, the maximum fine should be raised to at least HK$100,000–200,000; for cases resulting in death, to at least HK$300,000–500,000.
• Increasing imprisonment terms: For cases causing serious injury, the maximum term should be raised to at least 1–2 years; for cases resulting in death, to at least 3–5 years.
• Introducing minimum penalties: Establish clear minimum fines and/or minimum terms of imprisonment for cases involving serious injury or death, to prevent excessively lenient sentences.
• Addressing repeat offences and serious negligence: For second or subsequent offences, or where serious negligence results in injury or death, higher penalties should apply automatically, together with a mandatory “ban on keeping dogs” (prohibiting the person from keeping any dog for a specified period or for life). Deliberately allowing large or high-risk dogs to run uncontrolled in public places should be treated as an aggravating factor.
• Clarifying criminal liability: Explicitly provide that an owner who fails to take reasonable measures to control a dog, resulting in serious consequences, commits an offence, without having to rely solely on other ordinances for indirect prosecution.

5. Mandatory Third-Party Liability Insurance for Dog Owners 

The Society recommends that the Government require dog owners to purchase third-party liability insurance, particularly for large dogs (weighing 20 kg or above), fighting dogs, known dangerous dogs, and all dogs that are taken into public places.

The insurance should expressly cover:

• Injury to persons caused by a dog bite or other harm;
• Injury to other animals (including other dogs, cats, etc.);
• Resulting medical expenses, veterinary expenses, property damage, and related compensation.

Through mandatory insurance, once an incident occurs, the insurance company can settle claims directly, ensuring that victims receive reasonable compensation in a timely manner while reducing the financial burden on individual owners and society. Insurers can also adjust premiums according to the risk level of the dog, indirectly encouraging more responsible ownership and control. The Government may set a minimum coverage requirement and make a valid policy a necessary condition for obtaining or renewing a dog licence.

International Experience and Minimum Coverage Reference

A number of countries and regions have implemented varying degrees of mandatory third-party liability insurance for dogs. Several German states require all dogs or large/high-risk dogs to be insured. Spain imposes mandatory insurance nationwide for potentially dangerous dog breeds (minimum €120,000, approximately HK$1.02 million), with some autonomous communities extending the requirement to all dogs. Several Austrian states set the minimum at €725,000 (approximately HK$6.16 million). Certain Swiss cantons require coverage of CHF 1–5 million. South Korea requires mandatory insurance as a condition for keeping designated aggressive breeds. These experiences show that mandatory insurance can effectively protect victims’ access to compensation. Success depends on a reasonable scope, clear minimum coverage amounts, linkage to the licensing system, and sufficient underwriting capacity in the insurance market.

Hong Kong civil precedents also indicate that awards in moderate-to-severe attack cases commonly reach HK$300,000–600,000 or more (for example, a High Court case involving a Tibetan Mastiff attack awarded approximately HK$640,000; District Court cases involving facial scarring in children or adults have awarded between approximately HK$390,000 and HK$960,000). Therefore, the minimum coverage should not be set too low. A starting level of HK$500,000–1,000,000 or above is recommended to cover the majority of actual cases.

6. Strictly Combating Illegal Smuggling / Unlawful Import of Pets 

Illegally smuggled pets often enter without quarantine, have unknown origins, and may involve high-risk or fighting-dog bloodlines, seriously threatening public safety and animal health. The Society recommends:

• Substantially increasing the penalties and fines for illegal smuggling of pets to strengthen deterrence;
• Strengthening enforcement and prosecution, with stricter treatment of organised, repeated, or large-scale smuggling;
• Enhancing cooperation among border control, customs, and related departments to improve detection efficiency;
• Treating illegal smuggling together with subsequent false breed declaration or unregistered keeping as aggravating factors, so as to reduce the inflow of problem dogs at source.

7. Supporting the Government’s Announced Review Direction

• Support the Environment and Ecology Bureau in reviewing the definition and list of “fighting dogs” and comprehensively examining related control measures.
• Recommend concurrent review of the enforcement of leash requirements for large dogs, the practicality of exemption mechanisms, and whether daily enforcement resources are adequate.

III. Conclusion

The Society believes that breed restrictions or educational measures alone are insufficient to fully address the problem. The 679 prosecutions between 2023 and 2025, together with the recent series of serious incidents, clearly demonstrate that existing penalties lack adequate deterrence and that victim protection remains inadequate. Simultaneous improvements are needed from the perspectives of public safety, owner responsibility, industry standards, source control, insurance protection, and the fight against illegal smuggling. Significantly strengthening fines and penalties, together with mandatory third-party liability insurance, are indispensable key measures among these.

The above recommendations centre on concrete, enforceable, and measurable measures. We hope they will help safeguard public safety while promoting a culture of responsible pet ownership.

Enquiries are welcome through the Society’s official channels.