A Case Against the Legalization and Promotion of Dog Eating

by Richard Wesley

The present draft animal protection legislation of the Korean government provides a good view of the clear meaning of "the legalization of dog meat" in that country. From one view it seems to be a perfect compromise - offering the first bit of animal protection to the country with the worlds 11th biggest economy while allowing dogs to be housed and killed in a manner similar to pigs and cows in the west. It gives dog eaters in Korea a chance to come out of the back lanes and set up shop in Insa-dong and Daehan-ro. Certainly it proposes to ease the conscience of animal welfare activists who have little familiarity with the dynamics of the Korean situation and would sleep better if the legal papers read "eating but no beating". But there is more to the situation than this. When one talks about the legalization of dog eating one must also consider it the promotion of dog eating and look at the larger consequences it carries for the society. Moreover, while it is clear that legalization will mean perhaps 10 times as many dogs will be eaten a year in the country it by no means clear that there will be any rise in animal protection sentiment within the country, or any real animal protection in fact. The preamble of the law shows that the only reason for the animal protection law is to pacify western criticism. The law later goes on to state that cruelty to animals should not take place in a public area in a way that "provokes disgust in others". It is worth it to realize that while the government was placating western concerns during the latest round of global outcry what appeared in the Korean papers was almost solely nationalistic rhetoric and no discussion of animal welfare. The idea that the government will be bound to uphold any sort of law, minor as it is at present, has no historical precedent and it seems highly doubtful that that will change. For one thing, there is no one within the government who has any concern about animal protection as well as no bodies with any will or interest to enforce any sort of law. The law itself has no details on any form of enforcement. Given that the government has no credibility to bring in any major law it would be reasonable that their first task should be to take the first steps to sensitize the society to animal welfare issues and to allow those concerned about animals to express their views without being considered anti-Korean. But while the construction of Koreans first factory dog farm has been going on in Cheju Island through the past year it seems as if the will to mass production is flying far ahead of the will to humane treatment. While the Hong Kong Department of Fisheries and Agriculture concluded that there was no humane way to slaughter dogs, the Korean government has taken it for granted that this is not the case as it allows private plans for large scale dog slaughter to go on. The present law therefore must be seen principally from one side of it and not the other - the legalization and promotion of dog eating, rather than the protection of animals. But though dogs have at times appeared in the Korean media as creatures subsumed beneath nationalistic rhetoric this is not the case with all dogs. As is also the case in China at present, the dog is being "rediscovered" in Korea; it's relation to people is strengthening and its image as a family member evolving. However, this is not to say that the dog has not enjoyed a special place in the hearts of Korean people (in the end there is no different essential perception of the dog between a westerner and a Korean). That suppression of this relation caused by war and poverty has worsened the status of the dog does not nullify the fact that dog eating is something Koreans have done not without pangs of conscience. That there is a tension about this split perception of dogs is highlighted by the fact that, as a lubrication for the conscience, meat dogs in Korea are referred to as "shit dogs" (the concept of a "shit pig" or "shit cow" does not exist in the Korean vernacular). Rediscovering and strengthening of the special relation of people to their dogs will go further to healing the violence that has existed in that country than legalizing it will contribute to any short term national pride. That this new relation is betrayed and diminished by the dog meat industry can be recognized by anyone, the Koreans themselves notwithstanding. The legalization of dog meat carries a more complicated meaning than merely controlling the senseless violence of the dog butchers (that even this would happen is wishful thinking). It means institutionalizing the broken connection between people and their dogs, diminishing any compassionate sentiment in the country, giving power to those who put a lower value on life and giving a muzzle to those inside Korea who wish their society could be better and kinder. [The situation moves to the future, dog meat is legal. A foreigner encounters a Korean on the streets of Seoul] foreigner - "So now we have solved the problem of dog meat - policing of dog keeping and slaughtering facilities is overseen by government agencies bringing them under the same standard as farm animals kept in other developed countries, and we have respected your cultural integrity. So, has there been a great deal of progress for the humane treatment of animals in Korea?" Korean - "Are you crazy! We even eat our dogs, you think we care about a chicken? We eat 20 million dogs a year you think we care about one being abused?"