I feel a lot of sympathy for everyone involved: the farmers, the rescuers, and for the animals involved. Farm raising animals is a tough life for all: I feel that in the end it won't be laws or...
I feel a lot of sympathy for everyone involved: the farmers, the rescuers, and for the animals involved.
Farm raising animals is a tough life for all:
The former owner of that farm, 74-year-old Yang Jong-tae, told the BBC that as he watched the rescuers loading his dogs into their trucks, he was astonished by the level of compassion they showed.
"When I saw how they handled the animals - like they were handling people, so gently and lovingly - it really moved me," he said.
"We don't treat them like that. For us, raising dogs was just a way to make a living. But those people from the animal group treated the dogs like they were individuals with dignity, and that really touched my heart."
I feel that in the end it won't be laws or even diet that change people's attitude towards animals, it's going to be seeing different behaviour modelled and the financial stability to choose gentler ways.
Wow, that sucks. I hadn't heard about the ban. Dog meat was one of the main reasons I wanted to travel to South Korea, and it seems like an easier place to travel to than most other countries...
Wow, that sucks. I hadn't heard about the ban. Dog meat was one of the main reasons I wanted to travel to South Korea, and it seems like an easier place to travel to than most other countries where you can try dog.
There are a lot of other countries where it is still legal. I would imagine that you could also get to Korea quickly before the ban takes affect in 2027. (As someone who consumes other animals,...
There are a lot of other countries where it is still legal. I would imagine that you could also get to Korea quickly before the ban takes affect in 2027.
(As someone who consumes other animals, even intelligent ones like octopus and sensitive ones like lobsters, I have no moral high horse to stand upon for what animals you'd like to try. And I would ask others to be respectful as well.)
People eat all sorts of things. What makes dogs uniquely awful to kill and eat? I'm personally of the opinion that all meat is awful (even as I struggle to go entirely vegan), but I'm interested...
People eat all sorts of things. What makes dogs uniquely awful to kill and eat? I'm personally of the opinion that all meat is awful (even as I struggle to go entirely vegan), but I'm interested in what makes dog special.
Dogs and humans have a unique history owing to their status as the first domesticated animal (1000s of years before other animals) and subsequent co-evolution of social bonds. I find it...
Dogs and humans have a unique history owing to their status as the first domesticated animal (1000s of years before other animals) and subsequent co-evolution of social bonds. I find it understandable that many people across cultures have a specific aversion to viewing dogs as meat despite not doing so for other animals of comparable intelligence. I'm in no way claiming this sets dogs leagues above other animals, and certainly not claiming its ok to eat other animals (I personally do think most meat is immoral, especially industrially produced meat, and personally am trying to cut it out of my diet and go at least pescetarian).
It's kind of like, for example, when people get up in arms over something like (again, just for example), desecrating a flag. A flag is no different than any other piece of cloth except for the societal status and emotional import people place on it, borne out of a long history of cultural significance, and it is understandable to me that people are more attached to a flag than to a piece of cloth. Obviously, this analogy is imperfect, and I am introducing it to highlight one factor that I believe is similar to the case of eating dogs, acknolwedging that there are many differences that render it an imperfect analogy. Just my two cents.
I don’t think there’s any issue with personally not wanting to eat any kind of meat. Where it gets dicey is when it’s used as some kind of universal moral imperative. First, in practice culinary...
I don’t think there’s any issue with personally not wanting to eat any kind of meat. Where it gets dicey is when it’s used as some kind of universal moral imperative.
First, in practice culinary taboos are just arbitrary and come from cultural history and norms, rather than any kind of actual, objective backing.
Second, this line of reasoning is often used as a dogwhistle to denigrate other cultures as barbaric (when, again, it’s mostly arbitrary). See: the “Haitian eating our cats” story that was peddled the last US election cycle.
What line of reasoning exactly? My point is explicitly that dogs have historically filled roles in culture/society separate from being food (this is true even in many societies where dog meat...
What line of reasoning exactly? My point is explicitly that dogs have historically filled roles in culture/society separate from being food (this is true even in many societies where dog meat consumption is not taboo), and therefore it is understandable to me that many people have a specific aversion to eating dog. This introduces another axis, a cultural one, to discuss why some meats are consumed in some societies vs others, beyond the typical axis of "how intelligent is this animal". I'm making no claims of anything universal or objective, but was rather responding to a question of why "dogs are special" by highlighting their historical cultural role.
Obviously I abhor the type of denigration associated with the "they're eating our cats" stuff, and am somewhat bristling at the notion that me highlighting the relevance of cultural factors in societal norms is somehow along this line of reasoning.
Ok, I can respect that take. Many people have more attachment to this animal that shares our lives more closely than the ones who only exist in theory on some distant farm. It's why we care more...
Ok, I can respect that take. Many people have more attachment to this animal that shares our lives more closely than the ones who only exist in theory on some distant farm. It's why we care more when yhe people close to us are hurt as opposed to those in some foreign country. Understandable, even if it's not a great basis for a system of morality.
For me it's the amount of love a dog shows for humans that make me think it's more wrong, to me it'd be like eating a toddler lol but yeah where's the line, how about eating coyote or wolf, what's...
For me it's the amount of love a dog shows for humans that make me think it's more wrong, to me it'd be like eating a toddler lol but yeah where's the line, how about eating coyote or wolf, what's the difference
Is there a quantifiable metric by which dogs show more capacity to “love” humans than, say, pigs or cows? Both are fully domesticated and by all accounts can have strong emotions towards human...
Is there a quantifiable metric by which dogs show more capacity to “love” humans than, say, pigs or cows? Both are fully domesticated and by all accounts can have strong emotions towards human companions.
Beyond that, does it make sense to rank the ethics of killing and eating a species by the amount that they can “love” humans? Dogs are a heavily breeded animal. Humans have genetically brainwashed dogs to love humans in their very DNA.
Is it logically consistent that species that we didn’t genetically modify to please us are more deserving of death?
I dont think "brainwash" is the right term here, as it typically means adjusting an individual's preferences/behavior against their will. This is very different than the selective breeding of a...
I dont think "brainwash" is the right term here, as it typically means adjusting an individual's preferences/behavior against their will. This is very different than the selective breeding of a population over thousands of years, as was done with "man's best friend".
Sure, that’s why I said “genetically brainwashed”. Either way, the point is that dog’s “love” for humans is to a large extent an artificial product of human creation. That is what it is, but it...
Sure, that’s why I said “genetically brainwashed”. Either way, the point is that dog’s “love” for humans is to a large extent an artificial product of human creation. That is what it is, but it seems a bit rich to use it as metric for ethical killing.
Cows and pigs can show love to people to. the only reason you don't see it is cause we treat them like, well cattle, and don't really put thought to them. Farmers might see it but they are more...
Cows and pigs can show love to people to. the only reason you don't see it is cause we treat them like, well cattle, and don't really put thought to them. Farmers might see it but they are more seeing them as their profit than thinking things and even then some farmers do make pets of them (but are more practical and that doesn't stop them from eating them).
I say this as some one who eats cow and pig and would not eat dog and cat. But I also would not condemn some one for doing so but I really hope they don't tell me about it cause I don't want to know. And I honestly can't understand wanting to eat dog like the poster that started this discussion. I can't do that to an animal I see as a pet (I think that's the only difference really is cats and dogs are seen by the culture I am in as pets and not food).Just like I would try not to talk about eating cow around those who see cows as sacred.
Logically I feel if you eat meat you don't have a leg to stand on to condemn some one else who eats a different meat.
I intensely dislike dogs, and would never own one as a pet, so that's probably a big reason why I'm not weirded out about the idea of eating one. I don't think there is any animal I wouldn't try...
And I honestly can't understand wanting to eat dog like the poster that started this discussion. I can't do that to an animal I see as a pet
I intensely dislike dogs, and would never own one as a pet, so that's probably a big reason why I'm not weirded out about the idea of eating one. I don't think there is any animal I wouldn't try if offered, but cats and horses are two animals I would probably feel bad about slaughtering for food myself.
I very much dislike cats. I wouldn't want to eat one, not because they're cute fuzzy playful critters but my understanding is that predators don't taste all that great. Dogs are omnivores, so they...
I very much dislike cats. I wouldn't want to eat one, not because they're cute fuzzy playful critters but my understanding is that predators don't taste all that great.
Dogs are omnivores, so they might taste all right. I'd be interested in trying dog meat, even though I adore them as pet companions. I generally consider myself an adventurous eater, though I draw the line at eating things that are still alive.
Can confirm other animals also capable of showing love, affection, loyalty etc. Bought Embden goslings hoping to have source of slightly less ethically questionable protein. Now have too many...
Can confirm other animals also capable of showing love, affection, loyalty etc. Bought Embden goslings hoping to have source of slightly less ethically questionable protein. Now have too many geese and no meat, just eggs during laying season.
You’ll never win anyone over if you start off like that. Effects are what matter most. If someone is willing to at least reduce meat consumption you should applaud them. As is it sounds like you’d...
You’ll never win anyone over if you start off like that. Effects are what matter most. If someone is willing to at least reduce meat consumption you should applaud them. As is it sounds like you’d spit on them.
I worded that poorly. I don't necessarily think they deserve disrespect I just don't think I owe them anything persay. maybe I have respect defined differently then it actually is defined
I worded that poorly. I don't necessarily think they deserve disrespect I just don't think I owe them anything persay. maybe I have respect defined differently then it actually is defined
Because historically in Korea, dog meat was uncommon. In fact: There's a very clear generational divide between folks who eat it and folks who've never even tried nor want to. And I would imagine...
Because historically in Korea, dog meat was uncommon. In fact:
During the Silla (57 BCE – 935 CE) and Goryeo (918–1392 CE) dynasties, the practice was uncommon, as Buddhism was the state religion of both nations.[14] During the Goryeo Dynasty, eating meat was generally discouraged. During the Joseon Dynasty certain government officials argued that dogs were human companions and advocated a ban on the consumption of dog meat. (Wikipedia)
There's a very clear generational divide between folks who eat it and folks who've never even tried nor want to. And I would imagine perhaps there were times in the 1900s when older generations might have needed a ready source of protein, and they didn't have vegan restaurants, whole foods farmers markets, nor a bunch of cash readily available. My dad isn't Korean but there was a period in his life when the forced labour and starvation highlights some special memories of less awful times, featuring unconventional animal proteins.
I wish we lived in a universe where everything edible came in the form of a fruit, purposely grown by its organism specifically for us to consume, but thats not reality. So, where we draw the...
I wish we lived in a universe where everything edible came in the form of a fruit, purposely grown by its organism specifically for us to consume, but thats not reality.
So, where we draw the boundary is kind of arbitrary. Harvesting plants kills them, too, and we know plants react to damage because you can smell it when you mow the grass.
No thank you on the dog meat. There are an endless amount of recipes for other things that I will never be able to try with the time I have left in my life.
No thank you on the dog meat.
There are an endless amount of recipes for other things that I will never be able to try with the time I have left in my life.
It's actually become pretty hard to get even in Korea in recent years. You would need to research to find a place that still serves it, or travel to more rural places. A friend of mine spent a...
It's actually become pretty hard to get even in Korea in recent years. You would need to research to find a place that still serves it, or travel to more rural places. A friend of mine spent a year in Korea around 2015 and he ended up only being able to try dog meat in Vietnam.
In 2024, the South Korean government implemented a nationwide ban on the sale of dog meat for consumption. The landmark legislation, which was passed last January, gives farmers like Mr Joo until February 2027 to shutter their operations and sell off their remaining animals.
But many say that isn't enough time to phase out an industry which has propped up livelihoods for generations – and that authorities still haven't come up with adequate safeguards for farmers or the estimated half a million dogs in captivity.
Even those who support the ban, including experts and animal rights advocates, have flagged issues around its enforcement – including the difficulty of rehoming dogs that, having been saved from the kill floor, now face the increasingly likely threat of euthanasia.
...
[T]he 33-year-old meat farmer – who we agreed to anonymise for fear of backlash – faces a penalty of up to two years in prison.
"Realistically, even just on my farm, I can't process the number of dogs I have in that time," he says. "At this point I've invested all of my assets [into the farm] - and yet they are not even taking the dogs."
By "they", Chan-woo doesn't just mean the traders and butchers who, prior to the ban, would buy an average of half a dozen dogs per week.
He's also referring to the animal rights activists and authorities who in his view, having fought so hard to outlaw the dog meat trade, have no clear plan for what to do with the leftover animals – of which there are close to 500,000, according to government estimates.
...
Since weight equals profit in the dog meat industry, farms tend to favour larger breeds. But in South Korea's highly urbanised society, where many people live in apartment complexes, aspiring pet owners often want the opposite.
There is also a social stigma associated with dogs that come from meat farms, Mr Lee explains, due to concerns of disease and trauma. The issue is further complicated by the fact that many are either pure or mixed tosa-inu, a breed that is classified as "dangerous" in South Korea and requires government approval to keep as a pet.
Meanwhile, rescue shelters are already overcrowded.
...
[W]hile consumption rates have fluctuated throughout Korea's history, it has become increasingly taboo in South Korea in recent years.
A government poll from 2024 found only 8% of respondents said they had tried dog meat in the previous 12 months – down from 27% in 2015. About 7% said they would keep eating it up until February 2027, and about 3.3% said they would continue after the ban came into full effect.
Since the ban was announced, 623 of South Korea's 1,537 dog farms have closed.
I'm not too familiar with South Korean culture, but I wonder if this would be analogous to if pig meat was banned here in America--I could only imagine what kind of outrage that would invoke if it...
I'm not too familiar with South Korean culture, but I wonder if this would be analogous to if pig meat was banned here in America--I could only imagine what kind of outrage that would invoke if it happened here.
"It's just unbelievable," says Chan-woo.
"Since the law was made according to the demands of these groups, I assumed they had also worked out a solution for the dogs - like they would take responsibility for them. But now I hear that even the animal rights groups say euthanasia is the only option."
This seems like an absurd thing to say... Is he suggesting that the animal rights groups should not champion the ban on dog meat, because continuing to breed and slaughter them for food on an ongoing basis is somehow more humane than subjecting the few remaining un-adopted dogs to euthanasia and then ending the practice entirely?
I think what he's suggesting is that the law wasn't written in a way that lets him close his business in a sustainable way, leaving him with a large number of dogs that a) need to be killed...
I think what he's suggesting is that the law wasn't written in a way that lets him close his business in a sustainable way, leaving him with a large number of dogs that a) need to be killed anyway, and b) can't even be sold. It's the worst of both worlds.
Probably not as much outrage as if pork was made illegal. So maybe like banning something more rare, like deer? The sun setting of an entire industry is always going to be disruptive. Half a...
Probably not as much outrage as if pork was made illegal.
According to a 2020 survey of South Koreans, 83.8% of respondents reported to never having consumed dog meat before (wikipedia)
So maybe like banning something more rare, like deer?
The sun setting of an entire industry is always going to be disruptive. Half a million animals that, are probably not spayed and neutered, probably not housed apart from the opposite sex, that are large, belonging to stigmatized breeds, and not well socialized, is pretty disruptive. At least they can make a plan to euthanize (and consume) them properly instead of make law --> figure it out. Its not more or less humane, it's just very difficult for the farmers, rescuers, and the dogs.
It seems to be quite a lot of dogs. Another approach might be to spay/neuter and delay the ban a few years. I doubt anyone new will be entering the business?
It seems to be quite a lot of dogs. Another approach might be to spay/neuter and delay the ban a few years. I doubt anyone new will be entering the business?
You could even legislate that! No new business licenses after such-and-such date. Add additional requirements to prevent acquisition of new dogs (such as mandatory spaying/neutering, like you...
I doubt anyone new will be entering the business?
You could even legislate that! No new business licenses after such-and-such date.
Add additional requirements to prevent acquisition of new dogs (such as mandatory spaying/neutering, like you said), and you're done. The businesses are now guaranteed to shut down. Don't outlaw the sale or consumption of dog meat because that causes a sudden shock that leaves a bunch of people in the lurch. Just cut off the supply and let the farmers wind down their own businesses in an orderly fashion; it would save the same number of dogs' lives, just with less turmoil and ill-will.
(It goes without saying that this approach requires adequate enforcement of the law—but so does the existing solution with the hard cutoff of the entire industry.)
This article drove me nuts! AFAICT nothing is flat-out fabricated but the contextlessness should embarrass any journalist... 500,000 dogs is beyond niche, as meat consumption markets go. For...
This article drove me nuts! AFAICT nothing is flat-out fabricated but the contextlessness should embarrass any journalist... 500,000 dogs is beyond niche, as meat consumption markets go. For comparison, Korea's pork cooperatives total 11 million head of livestock. The speculation over what will become of these poor dogs and their poor farmers is, I think, blatant prejudicial behavior from the BBC. The logistical details of how invested parties may offload their remaining livestock is not being run on any kind of deadline like the 2027 date required by the ban. Activists raise the risk of euthanasia if nothing is done, but this is just different from a plan to euthanize, which no one has proposed. There is no way to pitch this story on this angle without reckoning with western journalists' typically lurid presentation of dog-meat production as a haunting sign of moral failing. It's a trope. Drop big numbers, skip the denominators, then moralize.
Well sure, the choice of denominator is important, but there are other choices. Even if it's just a niche compared to other livestock, I think 500,000 dogs might be a big number to deal with for...
Well sure, the choice of denominator is important, but there are other choices. Even if it's just a niche compared to other livestock, I think 500,000 dogs might be a big number to deal with for animal shelters, etc?
How many animals do animal shelters have to deal with yearly in South Korea?
It could make sense to consider shelter capacity when reporting on the ban -- if this were an ongoing issue. But in all likelihood, what will happen to the specific farms who are still invested...
It could make sense to consider shelter capacity when reporting on the ban -- if this were an ongoing issue. But in all likelihood, what will happen to the specific farms who are still invested will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Whether or not a large cull becomes the only humane option is a lurid question to ask. This article speculates horribly about the challenges involved in realizing the ban as a policy; nowhere does it account for the existing capacity of those organizations to correctly respond to the moral issue of which they are definitely already aware.
Really, any time a british news org spins a story about what's going on with dog meat, you really have to read between the lines. This article uses an apocalyptic scenario to describe what seems like largely reasonable policy-making efforts.
It's not going to be an ongoing issue, but it seems like the story is all about the transition? That is, whether the transition is being managed well or badly. It seems like you're not very...
It's not going to be an ongoing issue, but it seems like the story is all about the transition? That is, whether the transition is being managed well or badly.
It seems like you're not very curious about what happens to the dogs? I'm only mildly curious (animal welfare isn't my issue), but I'd read additional reporting about what happens to them.
I'm criticizing that sentiment, yes. It is implied that a compassionate reader should be at the very least curious about the fate of the dogs. The problem of rehoming has "proven challenging", it...
I'm criticizing that sentiment, yes. It is implied that a compassionate reader should be at the very least curious about the fate of the dogs. The problem of rehoming has "proven challenging", it is said to be too big, and even the most caring organizations all too underprepared for the scale of the impending deadline. This is an alarmist lens, an extremely vague and improbable outcome, "What if nothing is done?". Chan-Woo has 18 months to get rid of 600 dogs. CAN HE DO IT? Or else he GOES TO PRISON. For many, their livelihoods are or will be destroyed!!
It pretends this is a self-inflicted crisis, a looming deadline with vulnerable souls caught in the crossfire. And then it uses that humane pretense to prop up some very old ideas about the relative moral character of different cuisines. We end up back at famous British stereotype, western revulsion over dog meat and those who ever ate it. The article even calls out the blatant falsehood that dog meat carries more risk from a "food safety and hygiene perspective". Are the koreans a dirty people? Gosh, BBC, get the heck out of here with your old-timey nonsense...
I went into this not knowing that South Korea was banning dog meat and found the article informative. A Korean meat farmer is quoted saying, "I can't process the number of dogs I have in that...
I went into this not knowing that South Korea was banning dog meat and found the article informative.
A Korean meat farmer is quoted saying, "I can't process the number of dogs I have in that time." I don't know about the practical difficulties (I guess they're not a butcher?) and perhaps the reporter could have asked more questions. But I don't think the reporters did wrong by talking to a farmer. They are going to spin things their way, but they're people too.
The reporters (one of whom has a Korean name) also got quotes from a Korean campaign manager at "Humane World for Animals Korea" and a Korean government spokesperson.
There are also statistics about Korean attitudes towards eating dog meat, and they mention a Korean stigma about owning a dog that came from a meat farm.
They also talk about Koreans who lobbied the government for more money and government assurances that they're on it:
More recently, Mafra told the BBC it was investing about 6bn Korean won ($4.3m; £3.2m) annually to expand animal shelters and support private facilities, and would offer up to 600,000 Korean won per dog ($450; £324) to farmers who shut their businesses early.
The person they talked to about sanitary issues was Chun Myung-Sun, director of the Office of Veterinary Medical Education at Seoul National University:
Eating dog is not the same as eating other meats, according to Ms Chun. She points out that dog meat carries more risk from a food safety and hygiene perspective - especially in South Korea, where it has not been integrated into the formal, regulated meat production system.
(And it might have been useful to ask some more questions about that.)
I haven't read any other UK news stories about dog meat, so perhaps I'm missing some important context, but it seems like this story isn't about British stereotypes or Western attitudes about dog meat at all? It's all about what people in South Korea think, and the reporters don't take sides.
You've brought up hateful Western stereotypes when nobody else has mentioned them.
Right, the article is not about those stereotypes. My complaint is that it appears motivated by them in its editorial decisions to exclude scale references, and its focus on the naysayers, the...
Right, the article is not about those stereotypes. My complaint is that it appears motivated by them in its editorial decisions to exclude scale references, and its focus on the naysayers, the dramatic peril of "those left behind", and the sensational suggestion that a big cull is inevitable.
Another inaccuracy-by-omission-of-context. The article says that "many" of the dogs are large, aggressive Tosa mastiff breeds, but Tosa make up 10% or less of the remaining herd. The vast majority of the 500k that remain are docile yellow Nureongi which were bred specifically for meat. Tosa will probably be over-represented among the animals which are not successfully placed in the next two years, but the restrictions against adopting aggressive breeds simply do not apply to most of the other dogs in question. I think the decision to describe their number as a meaningful obstacle is all about making the effort seem futile.
Press briefing from MAFRA (the government entity coordinating the ban) and an animal welfare radio discussion from September (original source of the quote from Cho Hee-kyung). The debate over how...
Press briefing from MAFRA (the government entity coordinating the ban) and an animal welfare radio discussion from September (original source of the quote from Cho Hee-kyung).
The debate over how to handle the farms has been discussed broadly since last February, so most of this article is corroborated by sources on the public internet. But as far as I can tell the BBC seems to be shallowly recirculating only the points that support their likely bias.
It's honestly beyond niche. That number of animals is about 100 days of operation for a large beef facility (one of the more complicated animals to slaughter), and something like a week to a month...
It's honestly beyond niche. That number of animals is about 100 days of operation for a large beef facility (one of the more complicated animals to slaughter), and something like a week to a month for a large poultry facility (highly automated).
I feel a lot of sympathy for everyone involved: the farmers, the rescuers, and for the animals involved.
Farm raising animals is a tough life for all:
I feel that in the end it won't be laws or even diet that change people's attitude towards animals, it's going to be seeing different behaviour modelled and the financial stability to choose gentler ways.
Wow, that sucks. I hadn't heard about the ban. Dog meat was one of the main reasons I wanted to travel to South Korea, and it seems like an easier place to travel to than most other countries where you can try dog.
There are a lot of other countries where it is still legal. I would imagine that you could also get to Korea quickly before the ban takes affect in 2027.
(As someone who consumes other animals, even intelligent ones like octopus and sensitive ones like lobsters, I have no moral high horse to stand upon for what animals you'd like to try. And I would ask others to be respectful as well.)
Why would we be respectful? In no way does this deserve respect...
People eat all sorts of things. What makes dogs uniquely awful to kill and eat? I'm personally of the opinion that all meat is awful (even as I struggle to go entirely vegan), but I'm interested in what makes dog special.
Dogs and humans have a unique history owing to their status as the first domesticated animal (1000s of years before other animals) and subsequent co-evolution of social bonds. I find it understandable that many people across cultures have a specific aversion to viewing dogs as meat despite not doing so for other animals of comparable intelligence. I'm in no way claiming this sets dogs leagues above other animals, and certainly not claiming its ok to eat other animals (I personally do think most meat is immoral, especially industrially produced meat, and personally am trying to cut it out of my diet and go at least pescetarian).
It's kind of like, for example, when people get up in arms over something like (again, just for example), desecrating a flag. A flag is no different than any other piece of cloth except for the societal status and emotional import people place on it, borne out of a long history of cultural significance, and it is understandable to me that people are more attached to a flag than to a piece of cloth. Obviously, this analogy is imperfect, and I am introducing it to highlight one factor that I believe is similar to the case of eating dogs, acknolwedging that there are many differences that render it an imperfect analogy. Just my two cents.
I don’t think there’s any issue with personally not wanting to eat any kind of meat. Where it gets dicey is when it’s used as some kind of universal moral imperative.
First, in practice culinary taboos are just arbitrary and come from cultural history and norms, rather than any kind of actual, objective backing.
Second, this line of reasoning is often used as a dogwhistle to denigrate other cultures as barbaric (when, again, it’s mostly arbitrary). See: the “Haitian eating our cats” story that was peddled the last US election cycle.
What line of reasoning exactly? My point is explicitly that dogs have historically filled roles in culture/society separate from being food (this is true even in many societies where dog meat consumption is not taboo), and therefore it is understandable to me that many people have a specific aversion to eating dog. This introduces another axis, a cultural one, to discuss why some meats are consumed in some societies vs others, beyond the typical axis of "how intelligent is this animal". I'm making no claims of anything universal or objective, but was rather responding to a question of why "dogs are special" by highlighting their historical cultural role.
Obviously I abhor the type of denigration associated with the "they're eating our cats" stuff, and am somewhat bristling at the notion that me highlighting the relevance of cultural factors in societal norms is somehow along this line of reasoning.
Ok, I can respect that take. Many people have more attachment to this animal that shares our lives more closely than the ones who only exist in theory on some distant farm. It's why we care more when yhe people close to us are hurt as opposed to those in some foreign country. Understandable, even if it's not a great basis for a system of morality.
For me it's the amount of love a dog shows for humans that make me think it's more wrong, to me it'd be like eating a toddler lol but yeah where's the line, how about eating coyote or wolf, what's the difference
Is there a quantifiable metric by which dogs show more capacity to “love” humans than, say, pigs or cows? Both are fully domesticated and by all accounts can have strong emotions towards human companions.
Beyond that, does it make sense to rank the ethics of killing and eating a species by the amount that they can “love” humans? Dogs are a heavily breeded animal. Humans have genetically brainwashed dogs to love humans in their very DNA.
Is it logically consistent that species that we didn’t genetically modify to please us are more deserving of death?
I dont think "brainwash" is the right term here, as it typically means adjusting an individual's preferences/behavior against their will. This is very different than the selective breeding of a population over thousands of years, as was done with "man's best friend".
Sure, that’s why I said “genetically brainwashed”. Either way, the point is that dog’s “love” for humans is to a large extent an artificial product of human creation. That is what it is, but it seems a bit rich to use it as metric for ethical killing.
Cows and pigs can show love to people to. the only reason you don't see it is cause we treat them like, well cattle, and don't really put thought to them. Farmers might see it but they are more seeing them as their profit than thinking things and even then some farmers do make pets of them (but are more practical and that doesn't stop them from eating them).
I say this as some one who eats cow and pig and would not eat dog and cat. But I also would not condemn some one for doing so but I really hope they don't tell me about it cause I don't want to know. And I honestly can't understand wanting to eat dog like the poster that started this discussion. I can't do that to an animal I see as a pet (I think that's the only difference really is cats and dogs are seen by the culture I am in as pets and not food).Just like I would try not to talk about eating cow around those who see cows as sacred.
Logically I feel if you eat meat you don't have a leg to stand on to condemn some one else who eats a different meat.
I intensely dislike dogs, and would never own one as a pet, so that's probably a big reason why I'm not weirded out about the idea of eating one. I don't think there is any animal I wouldn't try if offered, but cats and horses are two animals I would probably feel bad about slaughtering for food myself.
I very much dislike cats. I wouldn't want to eat one, not because they're cute fuzzy playful critters but my understanding is that predators don't taste all that great.
Dogs are omnivores, so they might taste all right. I'd be interested in trying dog meat, even though I adore them as pet companions. I generally consider myself an adventurous eater, though I draw the line at eating things that are still alive.
Can confirm other animals also capable of showing love, affection, loyalty etc. Bought Embden goslings hoping to have source of slightly less ethically questionable protein. Now have too many geese and no meat, just eggs during laying season.
I was thinking the same thing.
Horses and cows can show similar amounts of love, consistent with their instincts as herbivore prey animals.
I'm also in the process of trying to go entirely vegan and I also view eating all meat as bad hence why I don't think meat eaters deserve respect
Everyone deserves respect.
You’ll never win anyone over if you start off like that. Effects are what matter most. If someone is willing to at least reduce meat consumption you should applaud them. As is it sounds like you’d spit on them.
I worded that poorly. I don't necessarily think they deserve disrespect I just don't think I owe them anything persay. maybe I have respect defined differently then it actually is defined
Because historically in Korea, dog meat was uncommon. In fact:
There's a very clear generational divide between folks who eat it and folks who've never even tried nor want to. And I would imagine perhaps there were times in the 1900s when older generations might have needed a ready source of protein, and they didn't have vegan restaurants, whole foods farmers markets, nor a bunch of cash readily available. My dad isn't Korean but there was a period in his life when the forced labour and starvation highlights some special memories of less awful times, featuring unconventional animal proteins.
I wish we lived in a universe where everything edible came in the form of a fruit, purposely grown by its organism specifically for us to consume, but thats not reality.
So, where we draw the boundary is kind of arbitrary. Harvesting plants kills them, too, and we know plants react to damage because you can smell it when you mow the grass.
No thank you on the dog meat.
There are an endless amount of recipes for other things that I will never be able to try with the time I have left in my life.
It's actually become pretty hard to get even in Korea in recent years. You would need to research to find a place that still serves it, or travel to more rural places. A friend of mine spent a year in Korea around 2015 and he ended up only being able to try dog meat in Vietnam.
From the article:
...
...
...
I'm not too familiar with South Korean culture, but I wonder if this would be analogous to if pig meat was banned here in America--I could only imagine what kind of outrage that would invoke if it happened here.
This seems like an absurd thing to say... Is he suggesting that the animal rights groups should not champion the ban on dog meat, because continuing to breed and slaughter them for food on an ongoing basis is somehow more humane than subjecting the few remaining un-adopted dogs to euthanasia and then ending the practice entirely?
I think what he's suggesting is that the law wasn't written in a way that lets him close his business in a sustainable way, leaving him with a large number of dogs that a) need to be killed anyway, and b) can't even be sold. It's the worst of both worlds.
Probably not as much outrage as if pork was made illegal.
So maybe like banning something more rare, like deer?
The sun setting of an entire industry is always going to be disruptive. Half a million animals that, are probably not spayed and neutered, probably not housed apart from the opposite sex, that are large, belonging to stigmatized breeds, and not well socialized, is pretty disruptive. At least they can make a plan to euthanize (and consume) them properly instead of make law --> figure it out. Its not more or less humane, it's just very difficult for the farmers, rescuers, and the dogs.
It seems to be quite a lot of dogs. Another approach might be to spay/neuter and delay the ban a few years. I doubt anyone new will be entering the business?
You could even legislate that! No new business licenses after such-and-such date.
Add additional requirements to prevent acquisition of new dogs (such as mandatory spaying/neutering, like you said), and you're done. The businesses are now guaranteed to shut down. Don't outlaw the sale or consumption of dog meat because that causes a sudden shock that leaves a bunch of people in the lurch. Just cut off the supply and let the farmers wind down their own businesses in an orderly fashion; it would save the same number of dogs' lives, just with less turmoil and ill-will.
(It goes without saying that this approach requires adequate enforcement of the law—but so does the existing solution with the hard cutoff of the entire industry.)
This article drove me nuts! AFAICT nothing is flat-out fabricated but the contextlessness should embarrass any journalist... 500,000 dogs is beyond niche, as meat consumption markets go. For comparison, Korea's pork cooperatives total 11 million head of livestock. The speculation over what will become of these poor dogs and their poor farmers is, I think, blatant prejudicial behavior from the BBC. The logistical details of how invested parties may offload their remaining livestock is not being run on any kind of deadline like the 2027 date required by the ban. Activists raise the risk of euthanasia if nothing is done, but this is just different from a plan to euthanize, which no one has proposed. There is no way to pitch this story on this angle without reckoning with western journalists' typically lurid presentation of dog-meat production as a haunting sign of moral failing. It's a trope. Drop big numbers, skip the denominators, then moralize.
Well sure, the choice of denominator is important, but there are other choices. Even if it's just a niche compared to other livestock, I think 500,000 dogs might be a big number to deal with for animal shelters, etc?
How many animals do animal shelters have to deal with yearly in South Korea?
It could make sense to consider shelter capacity when reporting on the ban -- if this were an ongoing issue. But in all likelihood, what will happen to the specific farms who are still invested will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Whether or not a large cull becomes the only humane option is a lurid question to ask. This article speculates horribly about the challenges involved in realizing the ban as a policy; nowhere does it account for the existing capacity of those organizations to correctly respond to the moral issue of which they are definitely already aware.
Really, any time a british news org spins a story about what's going on with dog meat, you really have to read between the lines. This article uses an apocalyptic scenario to describe what seems like largely reasonable policy-making efforts.
It's not going to be an ongoing issue, but it seems like the story is all about the transition? That is, whether the transition is being managed well or badly.
It seems like you're not very curious about what happens to the dogs? I'm only mildly curious (animal welfare isn't my issue), but I'd read additional reporting about what happens to them.
I'm criticizing that sentiment, yes. It is implied that a compassionate reader should be at the very least curious about the fate of the dogs. The problem of rehoming has "proven challenging", it is said to be too big, and even the most caring organizations all too underprepared for the scale of the impending deadline. This is an alarmist lens, an extremely vague and improbable outcome, "What if nothing is done?". Chan-Woo has 18 months to get rid of 600 dogs. CAN HE DO IT? Or else he GOES TO PRISON. For many, their livelihoods are or will be destroyed!!
It pretends this is a self-inflicted crisis, a looming deadline with vulnerable souls caught in the crossfire. And then it uses that humane pretense to prop up some very old ideas about the relative moral character of different cuisines. We end up back at famous British stereotype, western revulsion over dog meat and those who ever ate it. The article even calls out the blatant falsehood that dog meat carries more risk from a "food safety and hygiene perspective". Are the koreans a dirty people? Gosh, BBC, get the heck out of here with your old-timey nonsense...
I went into this not knowing that South Korea was banning dog meat and found the article informative.
A Korean meat farmer is quoted saying, "I can't process the number of dogs I have in that time." I don't know about the practical difficulties (I guess they're not a butcher?) and perhaps the reporter could have asked more questions. But I don't think the reporters did wrong by talking to a farmer. They are going to spin things their way, but they're people too.
The reporters (one of whom has a Korean name) also got quotes from a Korean campaign manager at "Humane World for Animals Korea" and a Korean government spokesperson.
There are also statistics about Korean attitudes towards eating dog meat, and they mention a Korean stigma about owning a dog that came from a meat farm.
They also talk about Koreans who lobbied the government for more money and government assurances that they're on it:
The person they talked to about sanitary issues was Chun Myung-Sun, director of the Office of Veterinary Medical Education at Seoul National University:
(And it might have been useful to ask some more questions about that.)
I haven't read any other UK news stories about dog meat, so perhaps I'm missing some important context, but it seems like this story isn't about British stereotypes or Western attitudes about dog meat at all? It's all about what people in South Korea think, and the reporters don't take sides.
You've brought up hateful Western stereotypes when nobody else has mentioned them.
Right, the article is not about those stereotypes. My complaint is that it appears motivated by them in its editorial decisions to exclude scale references, and its focus on the naysayers, the dramatic peril of "those left behind", and the sensational suggestion that a big cull is inevitable.
Another inaccuracy-by-omission-of-context. The article says that "many" of the dogs are large, aggressive Tosa mastiff breeds, but Tosa make up 10% or less of the remaining herd. The vast majority of the 500k that remain are docile yellow Nureongi which were bred specifically for meat. Tosa will probably be over-represented among the animals which are not successfully placed in the next two years, but the restrictions against adopting aggressive breeds simply do not apply to most of the other dogs in question. I think the decision to describe their number as a meaningful obstacle is all about making the effort seem futile.
Oh, that’s interesting. How did you learn about the different dog breeds?
Press briefing from MAFRA (the government entity coordinating the ban) and an animal welfare radio discussion from September (original source of the quote from Cho Hee-kyung).
The debate over how to handle the farms has been discussed broadly since last February, so most of this article is corroborated by sources on the public internet. But as far as I can tell the BBC seems to be shallowly recirculating only the points that support their likely bias.
It's honestly beyond niche. That number of animals is about 100 days of operation for a large beef facility (one of the more complicated animals to slaughter), and something like a week to a month for a large poultry facility (highly automated).