The AFCD maintain that their policy towards bovine management aligns with the wishes of the South Lantau community and the broader Hong Kong population. Officially the AFCD is promoting harmony and peaceful co-existence of the Lantau bovine and the people of Hong Kong.

88% of respondents expressed support

This is in line with current public sentiment.  In August 2024, a team from Hong Kong and City Universities published a paper titled “Public attitudes and values regarding a semi-urban feral megaherbivore”.

The team, consisting of Dr. Danhe Yang, Dr. Debottam Bhattacharjee, Dr. Kate Flay, Dr. Yifu Wang, Prof. Hannah S. Mumby, and Dr. Alan G. McElligott, conducted a survey to gather the opinions of 261 Lantau residents. When asked whether they “tolerate most inconvenience or disturbances caused by buffalo,” 88% of respondents expressed support, either agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement.

Despite the official policy of ‘harmonious co-existence’, it is the general consensus amongst residents of Hong Kong that the actions of the AMOD does not take into account the broader interests of the community but is beholden to a few local landowners holding a belief removal of the buffalos would widen their opportunity to develop South Lantau.

Dr. Jason Chan of the AMOD, on the 12 November 2024, in a recorded interview with local animal welfare groups, acknowledged his awareness of the public attitudes survey stating he was:

“waiting for that to be published and we never heard about that.”

When pressed on the point he dismissed it saying:

“I really don’t know about the conclusion.”

Dr. Chan has repeatedly shared his view to follow a policy of eradication of all Lantau bovine.

On the 17 August 2022, a paper titled ‘Long-term effect of a GnRH-based
immunocontraceptive on feral cattle in Hong Kong‘ was published. The paper concludes:

“As the management of feral cattle in Hong Kong is carried out to achieve a reduction in numbers but not remove these animals, choosing the best population control option will
depend on the target population size and on the time this should be achieved.”

It should be noted that Dr. Chan was a co-author of this paper. Despite local welfare groups reaching out to the Head of the AWOD, Dr Denise Bi, and Assistant Director of the Inspection & Quarantine Branch, Dr. Sit, sharing their concerns over the eratic responses of Dr. Chan, neither Dr. Bi or Dr. Sit have to date responded to any enquiries.

In the last quarter of 2024, the AFCD received 199 complaints from the public concerning the activities of the AWOD. To date, the AFCD have refused to provide any substantial response.

It is clear from the actions outlined above the AFCD AWOD team does not act in the interests of the wider Hong Kong community.

We welcome the Ombudsman’s investigation of the points mentioned above, with the aim of proposing recommendations that will align government departments, reduce waste and inefficiency, and better serve the broader public interests of the citizens of Hong Kong.