Dear Korean,
I heard that people eat dog meat in Korea. Is it something special, or do they put the dog meat to any meaty meal?
SibeliusDear Sibelius,
The answer is no. Dog-eating is one of the things for which is Korea is notorious, and much of it is distorted or misunderstood. For example,
Wikipedia’s page on dog meat consumption in Korea is filled with utter falsehood, likely generated by anti-dog meat crowd in Korea. Hilariously, the Wikipedia post cites to some incredibly dubious sources such as Helsinki Times – clearly an authority in Korean culture. Therefore, the Korean will outline the facts about dog-eating in Korea, and follow it up with the Korean’s own opinion regarding the topic.
The “fact” section will be organized in a Q&A style. Because the Korean is feeling rather generous today, for this topic only the Korean will accept any further question on this topic that he did not address through the comment section.
Facts about Dog-Eating in KoreaQ: Do Koreans eat dogs?
A: Yup, they sure do. A good friend of the Korean would not believe him, saying, “I thought it was an untrue and malicious stereotype.” No, it is all true. Koreans eat dogs.
But this is not what happens. (Seriously, the picture is a joke.)Q: Why do Koreans eat dogs?
A: People eat what’s around them. Protein, especially obtained from a large animal, was traditionally scarce in Korea. Eating a cow was nearly out of the question – each household, if it were lucky, would have a single head of cattle to pull the plow. Pigs competed for the same food that humans ate. Dogs did not. Traditionally, dogs are eaten during the three high heat days of summer, called
bok or
sam-bok ("three
bok").
Q: How prevalent is it?
A: Dog meat is not very prevalent in modern Korea – it is not what people eat every day. You have to visit a restaurant that specializes in dog meat-based dish to get it. There are apparently
around 530 such restaurants in Seoul, which is not many for a 12 million people city. Roughly 1 million dogs are slaughtered for food each year. By weight, it is the
fifth-most consumed meat in Korea, following chicken, pork, beef and duck.
-UPDATE 4/18/2011- According to
the survey commissioned by the National Assembly in 2006, approximately two million dogs are slaughtered for food each year, and it is the fourth-most consumed meat after chicken, pork and beef.
Q: Is dog meat considered a gourmet delicacy?
A: No. It is traditionally a peasant food, and was never considered high-end. Reflecting this status, you would have to get out to the poorer outskirts of Seoul to encounter a good dog meat dish.
Q: What do Koreans think about dog-eating generally?
A: According to
a survey conducted in 2000, 83 percent of Koreans (91.9 percent of males and 67.9 percent of females) have eaten dog meat. 86.3 percent of Koreans favored eating dog meat (92.3 percent of males and 72.1 percent of females).
-UPDATE 4/18/2011- According to
the survey commissioned by the National Assembly in 2006, 55.3 percent of all adults have tried dog meat. Approximately 75 percent of Koreans are in favor of eating dog meat.
Q: What do Koreans who own pet dogs think about dog-eating?
A: Some pet dog owners in Korea have become extremely vocal against dog-eating, citing all the reasons that are familiar to non-Koreans who find dog-eating unpalatable. Most pet dog owners are more moderate: in most cases, they wouldn’t eat a dog, but do not care about other people who do. Still others distinguish dogs raised as pets and dogs raised as food, and have no qualms about eating a dog. The Korean’s friend who lives in Korea owns a Yorkshire Terrier as a pet but is nonetheless a huge fan of dog meat. She frequently goes to the dog meat restaurant with her Terrier, and says she feels no inner conflict.
-UPDATE 4/18/2011-
According to a survey conducted by Bayer in 2007, about a quarter of pet dog owners have tried or enjoy dog meat.
Apparently, looking at this mug does not dim the Korean's friend's appetite for dogs.However, the distinction between edible dogs and pet dogs is not necessarily ironclad for sellers of dog meat. Recently there was a report that
abandoned pet dogs were being trafficked to dog meat dealers instead of an animal shelter, where they are supposed to go. The movie
Ddong Gae (English title: Mutt Boy) shows the main character fighting the bullies who ate his dog, which the main character picked up as a stray.
Q: I heard dog meat is illegal in Korea. Is that true?
A: It is more correct to say that dog meat is in legal grey area. Livestock Processing Act of Korea sets forth various standards for how livestock may be raised, slaughtered, processed, sold, inspected, etc.
Oddly, dogs do not fall under the definition of “livestock”. This is an odd omission because the definition of “livestock” includes horses, which Koreans almost never eat. (The Korean's guess would be that whichever aide to the legislator who drafted the law copied a non-Korean law without thinking too much about it.) This does not mean that dog meat is illegal; it just means that Livestock Processing Act does not regulate the processing of dog meat. Instead, it is regulated by Food Hygiene Act, which simply defines “food” as
“all foodstuff, except taken as medicine.”But dog meat-abolitionists of Korea often argue that this indicates the Korean law’s recognition that dogs are not for eating. On the other hand, however, the National Tax Board of Korea issued an opinion that
dog meat restaurants may receive the same tax treatment for their purchase of dog meat as, say, the tax treatment that a barbecue restaurant receives for its purchase of beef. So it’s fair to say that this issue is muddled.
Several years ago, there was some attempt on the part of Seoul city government to regulate dog meat processing in order to ensure it is processed in a hygienic manner. However, the vocal minority vigorously opposed the “legalization” of dog meat, and the idea was dropped.
Q: How are the dogs raised and slaughtered?
A: Because Livestock Processing Act does not cover dog meat, dog-ranchers (so to speak) and dog meat sellers essentially go for the raising/slaughtering method that generates maximum profit. This generally leads to unsightly living conditions for edible dogs, similar to those of pigs or chickens in industrialized farming in the U.S., only in a smaller scale. Dogs are raised in a small cage and sold alive until they get to meat market. Then they are generally electrocuted before being processed and shipped to restaurants.
Freshly slaughtered dogs in a market in Korea that specializes dog meat wholesale.
Q: Is it true that the dogs are tortured before they are killed?
A: Again, because Livestock Processing Act does not cover dog meat, there is no restriction about how to kill a dog for meat. At the meat market, the need to slaughter the dogs quickly usually means dogs are electrocuted, similar to cattle. However, especially in rural areas where people slaughter dogs to cook and eat on their own, the common method is to hang the dog and beat it to death, in an attempt to tenderize the meat. (This, however, may be counterproductive; while beating the meat does tenderize it, an animal that dies in a stressed state generally produces tougher and less tasty meat.) A figurative expression in Korean for a severe beating is “like beating a dog on bok day.”
Q: Enough with the cultural stuff, let’s get to the food – How is dog meat cooked? Is it like a Chinese restaurant, where you can get the same dish in different meat? (e.g. beef fried rice/chicken fried rice/shrimp fried rice/dog fried rice?)
A: The answer to the second question is no. Dog meat is generally cooked in two different ways – in a spicy soup or steamed and braised. (The same soup is sometimes made with goat meat.) In addition, dog meat broth made with herbs is considered medicinal, and is often prescribed by oriental medicine doctors in Korea. It is supposed to be an energy booster.
Dog meat, two stylesQ: What does dog meat taste like? Is it good?
A: It tastes closest to goat meat – like extremely lean beef, with a little bit of its own aroma (a little like lamb). Yes, it is very tasty.
Q: What does the Korean think about dog-eating in Korea?
A: Glad you asked, made-up-questioner!
The Korean's thoughts on dog meat, and additional questions/objections about dog meat, after the jump.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
The Korean’s Thoughts on Dog-Eating in KoreaThe Korean has no problem with people who refuse to eat dog meat. Far be it from the Korean to quibble with other people’s preference in food. The Korean also has no problem with people who are repulsed by dog meat, or the process of turning dogs into dog meat. You are who you are, and if you are repulsed by a certain food for any reason, that’s completely fine. By all means, please go on eating what you like, and be happy.
But to everyone who is trying to stop anyone from eating dog meat, the Korean has only this to say: please, go fuck yourself. Seriously, please remove yourself from the Korean’s vicinity and give yourself a handjob. The Korean cannot disagree more with your position. Go eat what you want, be happy, and leave Koreans alone. Koreans will go on eating what they want, and be happy too.
Objection against Koreans’ eating meat usually comes in three flavors. The Korean will address each in turn.
1. Koreans should not be eating meat, period – and that includes dog meat.
Often, self-righteous vegetarians and vegans make the argument that no one should be eating meat, based on two arguments: (1) it is morally impermissible for humans to cause pain on sentient beings; (2) because meat is less efficient to produce than vegetables and grains, forgoing meat would significantly alleviate (if not eliminate) world hunger.
The Korean is receptive to the second argument – that argument alone was enough to turn the Korean into vegetarian for a year. But what makes the second argument very convincing turns the first argument unpersuasive, and even dangerous. What’s the difference between the first and the second argument? The second argument focuses on humans and their suffering. The first argument focuses on “sentient beings” – i.e. non-human animals; to which, the Korean has two objections.
First, let us soberly face our biological destiny. Humans are omnivores. We are biologically wired to be omnivores. There is no human society that does not eat meat, absent certain religious or personal creed that overrides the biological impulse. Our biological destiny is amoral. We do not think lions are immoral because they eat meat. That is what they do. Similarly, humans eat meat. That’s what we do. Even in places that have few animals to eat, humans turn to animal protein. For example, in traditional New Guinea society where there was no large animals (chicken counts as large) to eat, people ate mice, spiders and frogs.
One might think one would just turn vegetarian rather than going through the trouble of catching and eating these little critters.
As biological omnivores, there can be no moral judgment attached to the fact that humans eat meat. In order to eat meat, pain must be caused on animals. This is not only inevitable, but also universal in a world in which animals eat other animals to survive. Sentient beings cause pain – and indeed, death – to other sentient beings all the time, as far as eating and survival are concerned. It is unpersuasive to say that humans must be an exception.
Second, while the Korean has problems with the “sentient being” argument itself, he has even bigger problem with the kinds of behavior that the argument justifies. Stated simply, the “sentient being” argument leads people to value animals more than humans. This is utter insanity, and completely unacceptable.
Case in point? The 23-month jail sentence of Michael Vick
for running a dog-fighting ring. To be sure, animal cruelty – and specifically, what Vick did – is despicable. Animal abuse has to be illegal because we wish to discourage the abuser’s twisted desire for sadism. Regardless, the Korean was in utter shock when the news came out Vick received 23 months.
Federal Sentencing Guideline (which is, as the name suggests, a guideline and not a hard rule) recommends
level 10 for gambling rings that involve animal fighting, which translates to 0 to 6 months in prison for a person with no prior criminal history, like Vick. If you don’t think running a dog fighting ring (as opposed to, say, a cock fighting ring) had nothing to do with the between 4- and 23-times increase in Vick’s sentence, you are crazy.
Please take a look at the linked Federal Sentencing Guideline and see what crimes typically get 23 months in prison for a first time offender (which is level 15 and 16.)
Involuntary manslaughter is at level 12.
Aggravated assault is at level 14. Sexual
abuse of a ward (i.e. a child in one's supervision, like a foster child) is level 14. Can you honestly say that dead dogs – no matter what the number and the manner of death – are more serious, or even equally serious, than a dead person, a person with severe injury, or a sexually molested child? If you answer yes, your priorities are severely misplaced.
Lest you think this is hypothetical, here is a real life example that parallels Michael Vick. Earlier this year, Donte Stallworth – another high-caliber NFL player like Vick –
was driving under influence, hit 59-year-old Mario Reyes, and killed him. Here is a man who recklessly killed another man. How much jail time Stallworth receive? (You might to sit down for this one.) 30 days. If that does not make you indignant, the Korean does not know what to say to you. Reyes was a construction worker who worked all night and was trying to get home by catching a bus. Presumably, he had a family to feed. Did any of the dogs killed by Vick have a family to feed? If it stopped Reyes from dying, the Korean would gladly torture and kill any number of dogs with his own bare hands in the most horrendous manner imaginable. No word yet as to if a charitable society rushed to make sure Reyes’ family was taken care of in a high-profile photo-op, like
the dogs rescued from Vick’s dog-fighting ring.
Seriously, the Korean couldn't even find the picture of Mario Reyes on line. But picture of Vick's former fighting dogs? They are everywhere.
But we do not even need to compare Reyes’ life and dogs’ lives. What about Vick’s life? Isn’t Michael Vick human? Isn’t his freedom important? Didn’t he deserve to be treated fairly, and receive the punishment that was proportional to his crime? Isn’t Vick’s constitutional right more important than lives of dogs? By any measure, Vick should not have received more than 6 months in prison. Instead, he got 23, and he was bankrupted in the process. And the pitchfork mob wants more blood out of Vick,
staging petition drive to ban him from the NFL, depriving him of the only way in which he can earn a living.
Anyone with a functioning moral compass would say that human interest must come before animal interest. Yet when it comes to dogs, Americans just lose their minds – and the “sentient being” argument fuels this insanity. By imbuing morality into an amoral subject, the argument over-values animals’ pain and undervalues human interest. The result is that one high-profile NFL player kills a person and resumes his life after 30 days in jail with minimal publicity, while another high-profile NFL player kils dogs and gets his life nearly destroyed, with the media harping on and on and on. The “sentient being” argument makes people value animals more than humans. That cannot stand.
(As an aside, it must also be noted that one rarely sees anyone other than white people in those PETA rallies, for a good reason – colored people of America have been fighting for the last few centuries trying to be treated like humans. Now that we are being treated like humans, we are not very much inclined to give the same status to dogs.)
Maybe the two girls in the back count as colored?
Furthermore, even the most orthodox “sentient being” proponents appear to get especially worked up over dog meat than, say, pesticides that kill millions of animals (insects) in order to grow the vegetables they eat. This leads to the next group.
2. Koreans may eat other meat, but not dog meat.
This is the most contemptible argument against eating dog meat – that while eating other meat is ok, eating dog meat is not. The argument is contemptible because it belies its proponents’ underlying conviction of cultural superiority, which is completely objectionable. It is pretty much a historical accident that Europeans/Americans developed a particular penchant for dogs. In a herding economy like old Europe, dogs were more useful as herding assistant than for their meat. But in an agricultural economy like old Asia, dogs had just about one use – meat. In that sense, dogs in East Asia were not much different from chickens. But no matter – to the opponents of dog meat, their historical accident is superior to any other people’s historical accident, regardless of how accidental their historical accident was.
In an attempt to forge an objective argument separate from the historical accident, opponents of dog meat basically make the case that dogs are more special over other animals, and therefore we cannot eat dogs. There are basically two sub-arguments as to why dogs are more special: (1) dogs are smart; (2) dogs are loyal, and therefore our friend. Let us discuss each in turn.
First, dogs are smart. Really? The Korean’s friend’s Maltese would not stop eating toilet paper and excrete white poop, although you can obviously tell it suffers from pain as the toilet paper passes through its digestive tracks. But regardless, why does intelligence determine what we eat? Pigs are known to be extremely intelligent –
smarter than a three-year-old human child. Mother sows sing songs to piglets as they nurse, for crying out loud. Yet barbecue restaurants roasting dozens of whole pigs a day are innumerable and everywhere in America. So that’s not a real argument – unless one is willing to argue that no human should eat (or kill) any animal, as above, partly because animals are intelligent.
And it's not as if pigs lose out on the cuteness factor either. Aww.
Second, dogs are loyal – “Man’s best friend”, as it were – and therefore special over other animals. But the value of dogs’ loyalty tends to be vastly overstated, because humans project their values and emotions onto creatures that cannot talk back. Humans are particularly good at projecting their own values and emotions with animals, distorting the truth of what happens in the social life of animals.
Here is an example: at Pier 39 in San Francisco, there is a sizeable colony of California sea lions, which serves as a tourist attraction. In front of Pier 39, there is a statue of three sea lions – a large one symbolizing the father figure, slightly smaller one for the mother figure, and a cute, tiny one for the baby. Cued by the statue, the visitors often try to figure out which sea lion would be mommy, daddy or the baby, often trying to find the smallest one and saying among themselves, “That must a baby!”
Sea lion statue at Pier 39, San FranciscoTruth is, no sea lion at Pier 39 is a baby. Moreover, no sea lion at Pier 39 is a nuclear family of father, mother and child as the statue suggests – the sea lion colony at Pier 39 is made entirely up of adult male sea lions. They are there because a regular colony of sea lions is made up of one male and up to thirty females and their babies. In other words, the sea lions at Pier 39 are the loser males – the males that would not get laid ever in their lives. But what kind of tourist attraction would celebrate a collection of dudes who lost out in the process of creating a harem of one alpha male and 30 women? Better to pretend that it’s a family, although the smallest sea lion may well be the oldest one among the bunch that just happened to have a small stature.
The same with dogs. The Korean will readily admit that dogs are generally loyal. But it is a mistake to ascribe the value of human loyalty to a dog’s loyalty. Dogs are not loyal because they choose to be loyal – dogs are loyal because that’s exactly what they are hard-wired to do. All domesticable animals – dogs, horses, cows – have the same trait: they are all pack animals, which follow the pack leader. Humans could domesticate those animals exactly because of that trait – human could assume the position of the pack leader, and the animals would follow them.
We do not think sea lions are immoral because they practice polygamy. That’s just what nature is making them do. For the same reason, dogs are not on a higher moral plane somehow because they are loyal – being loyal is just what nature is making them do. Can we admire it? Within reason, sure. Humans admire the lion’s strength and eagle’s swiftness, and often borrow their names for things for which we wish they embodied those qualities. (For example, national seals or sports teams.) By the same token, we can admire a dog’s loyalty. But that does not make dogs any better than any other animal.
3. Koreans should not eat dog meat because the process by which dogs are turned into meat is unnecessarily cruel
This argument has some merit in the Korean’s opinion. Even as an avid meat-eater, the Korean will readily accept this point – while there can be no moral judgment attached to the fact that humans eat meat, there can be moral judgment attached to
how humans eat meat. This is just like the fact that humans are supposed to have sex, as it is their biological destiny to have sex. However, morality dictates that there are certain restrictions as to how sex may be conducted in human society.
Similarly, the Korean believes that humans need to treat the animal that sacrifices its life for our benefit with dignity and respect. That includes doing away with the most horrifying aspects of industrialized farming, which features heavily stressed out animals living in cages too small to move an inch, which in turn prompts massive use of antibiotics just to keep them from dying from stress.
This needs to stop.
(Aside: If the Korean were to choose the most notable difference in Korea and America with respect to the way in which its people approach their food, he would pick the level of respect towards food – Koreans are nearly reverential of their food, while Americans display almost no respect toward their food. It probably is not a coincidence that
Korea is the thinnest country in the OECD, and America the fattest. But that’s a topic for another day.)
And yes, treating animals with dignity and respect means that the current way in which dogs raised for their meat in Korea must change. The tiny cages must go, and so must the unsanitary living condition for those dogs. The method of slaughtering the dogs must be regulated as well, so that the dogs may end their lives in a humane, dignified manner.
But – not so ironically – the greatest obstacle to regulating the processing of dog meat in Korea is not the dog meat restaurateurs or dog ranchers, but the opponents of dog-eating. As the Korean described in the “fact” section of this post, the lawmakers of Seoul city government attempted to regulate the dog meat processing procedure so that it would be more hygienic, and therefore humane. (Because after all, it is humane to have animals living in a clean condition.) But it was the opponents of dog-eating – who believe that currently dog meat is illegal in Korea – who rabidly attacked the proposal, fearing that it would “legalize” dog meat. The legislators saw no political gain to be made from pushing the proposal, and backed off.
In other words, while attempting to reduce the suffering of dogs raised for meat through regulation is a valid and worthy goal, boycotting dog meat is not the way to do that. Dog meat restaurateurs or dog ranchers are not a politically powerful group. They are, in general, very poor people with limited resources, and the poor condition of the dogs that they raise is a reflection of their human caretakers’ lot. They have no leverage at all if the Korean government – of any level – wanted to make the dog raising/slaughtering process more humane and sanitary (and presumably more expensive). Those who oppose eating dogs hold all the leverage. The best way to make the dogs’ lives less miserable, therefore, is to target those who blindly oppose any measure that attempts to regulate dog meat. They must be convinced that unregulated dog meat could be a human health hazard, and promotes the dogs’ suffering as well.
ConclusionThis post was rather long, so the Korean will distill it into three major takeaways:
(1) Koreans eat dog meat – not as much as beef, chicken or pork, but they do. Dog meat is tasty.
(2) If you don’t like it, fine – eat what you want, and be happy.
(3) If you want Koreans to stop eating dog meat – didn’t the Korean already tell you go away and fuck yourself?
-EDIT 9/1/09 8 p.m.-
As promised, the Korean will answer more questions from the comment section.
Q: What breed of dogs are most popular to be eaten?
A: Wikipedia entry claims that there is a specific Korean dog breed that is raised for meat, but that is not the most correct way to describe it. (Seriously, when it comes to Korean culture, don't trust Wikipedia.)
First, one must understand what kind of dogs live in Korea. Because Korea traditionally did not raise dogs as pets, few dogs were raised in a carefully selective manner enough to create any notable breed, with certain exceptions. At this point in time there is only one breed in Korea that is worth a name -- the famous Jindo dogs, bred for its intelligence and loyalty as hunting dogs. (But even with Jindos, there is a lot of problem figuring out exactly which dogs qualify as a purebred.) All other dogs in Korea are either imported dogs specifically for the purpose of being pets, or generic mutts that do not have any real breed.
So the most accurate way of describing the breed of dog eaten is: all dogs, except certain dogs protected by law as national treasure (i.e. Jindos) or pet dogs that are imported. Pets are usually owned by someone so they are generally not eaten, except in certain situations described above, i.e. some shady restaurants turning abandoned pet into dog meat. Jindos are national treasure, and it is illegal to take a purebred Jindo out of their native Jindo Island (for which their name is given), much less kill them for food. In practice, this means generic mutts in Korea are (by and large) the only dogs that are turned into food. But it is not as if those generic mutts belong to a particular breed.
Q: How popular is dog meat among younger Koreans?
A: Definitely less popular than among older Koreans. Younger Koreans are more likely to have dogs as pets, so they more often refrain from eating dogs. Reflecting this factor, dog meat abolitionists in Korea are overwhelmingly young women. However, interestingly, while young people may eat dogs less, they are the most in favor of "legalizing" it
according to this survey cited by an animal rights group in Korea. (But as explained above, "legalizing" dog meat is not a perfectly accurate term.)
At any rate, the Korean really hopes that dog meat does not fade into history. Seriously, it's tasty. Don't knock it until you try it.
Also, some corrections are in order:
- Commenter Jewook pointed out that in
Animal Protection Act passed in 2008, which bans cruel methods of killing an animal (such as hanging) or killing an animal in a public place. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this law is not particularly well-enforced, but Jewook points out at least one news report where
a man was arrested for killing a dog in a public place by hitting its head with a shovel before cooking it. So there is some restriction as to method of killing.
(The Korean's original point -- that formally regulating dogs as livestock would improve the dogs' welfare and therefore more humane -- still stands, because Animal Protection Act does not specifically regulate how dogs raised for their meat may be raised. It says in broad terms that "Owner of an animal must endeavor to provide suitable food and sufficient amount of water, exercise, rest and sleep" -- which may as well not be there, because it is not followed by how this clause may be enforced.)
- Robert Koehler, proprietor of the blog
Marmot's Hole and a fan of dog meat, noted that
dog meat dishes are not particularly cheap (between $10~$25 per person, depending on the dish,) and one does not need to go to the outskirts of Seoul to get it. That's a fair point -- it does not make dog meat a high-end food, but it is not random cheap food either. The Korean would note that, regardless, dog meat is more popular outside of Seoul, where there is less money and presumably less pet dogs to distort one's perspective.
Koehler also linked an interesting
article on the current Korean president's favorite foods, which includes steamed and braised dog meat during summer.
-EDIT 9/3/2009 6:26 p.m.-
More questions are answered:
Q: What's the Korean name for the steamed and braised dog meat dish? Is it also served in
boshintang restaurants?
A: It is called
su-yuk, or
gaegogi suyuk. Suyuk is actually generic term for steamed and braised meat, and
gaegogi means "dog meat".
Suyuk can also be made with pork, and the pork version is more popular.
Boshintang is the name for the soup, and yes,
boshintang and
suyuk are almost always sold at the same place.
Q: In France/Europe we eat rabbit, and I heard in Korea they didn't eat rabbit because people think it is too cute of an animal. Is it so?
A: Nope, not at all. Rabbit meat is generally rare in Korea, but that's just because there aren't too many rabbits in Korea. The Korean had plenty of rabbit in his Europe trip, and is a massive fan.
-EDIT 9/20/2009 4:47 p.m.-
A reader sent an interesting New York Times article:
archeological study says that dogs were first domesticated in southern China, for the purpose of eating them.
-EDIT 9/28/2009 3:27 p.m.-
More questions!
Q: What do they feed the dogs raised for food in Korea? Is it cost effective to raise them in a large-scale setting, given that dogs require at least some meat to feed?
A: The Korean does not know exactly what the dogs are fed. But the Korean knows that not enough dog meat is consumed in Korea to justify a factory-style ranching like chickens or pigs -- in other words, dog-ranching is not a large-scale thing. Usually a dog farm would not involve more than about 30 dogs, and mind you, these are very primitive operations. Therefore, presumably, not much effort or thoughts go into the dogs' diet. But given that these dog farms are nonetheless doing business, it must be cost effective somehow.
-EDIT 3/6/2010 8:26 p.m.-
Not a question, but an objection:
Objection:
I think humans, who are at the top of the food chain, need to draw a line at some point. My Korean friends (who don't eat dog meat!) use that "dogs-are-the-same-as-cattle" argument whenever we have this debate, which I'm sure many of us have heard a gazillion times (and it's the only argument they have). Foreigners, esp.the politically correct ones, cite "culture" and "tradition" as reasons for why there's nothing wrong with dog meat consumption. Culture and tradition? Then perhaps certain African tribes that practice cannibalism could use "culture" and "tradition" as their excuse to continue their hideous practices. "But this is different! They're eating humans!" many may cry. Yes, but from an objective point of view, we're all just animals, aren't we? But I give this extreme example to show that "culture" and "tradition" are merely weak attempts at excusing certain habits which should have been done away with a long time ago. There is a certain line that must be drawn, because in my humble opinion, the depravity of the human mind knows no limits when held unchecked.
The Korean's Rejoinder:
If one only resorted to "extreme examples", one can basically make any dumb argument. For example, the Korean can try to make an argument that racism against African Americans do not exist in America in any form whatsoever, citing such extreme examples as Barack Obama (the president) and Michael Jordan (a pop culture icon). But that argument is obviously wrong. In fact, the problem for anti-dog meat people is this: they can give nothing
but extreme examples (e.g. equating dogs and humans) because their position is so incorrect that giving a reasonable example is all but impossible. And they cannot even stay with that extreme example, because when pressed, they are forced to admit that humans are more important than dogs.
-EDIT 3/9/2010 9:18 p.m.-
More objection in bold, the Korean's rejoinder in normal font.
1) The comparison between Vick and the other guy seems ridiculous. Torturing and killing numerous animals over a period of 6 years and accidentally (i agree recklessly) killing a human being cannot be equated. Very simple, one was done for amusement (i dont buy the crap that it was his means of livelihood...that ways a thief's 'means of livelihood' is stealing!) and the other was an unfortunate accident , for which he was punished. The Korean thinks you are presupposing what you have to prove. Your argument works only if it is presupposed that killing dogs is equivalent to (or at least close to equivalent to) killing humans. And when pressed, not even the most ardent animal-rights supporter is ready to say that killing dogs is just as bad as killing humans.
To be sure, the Korean does think that Vick deserved to be punished. But the punishment is deserved not because dogs died, but because Vick displayed a level of depravity that is unacceptable in civilized society. In other words, the focus has to be on the human, not on the dogs. The Korean thinks Vick got an unfairly large amount of punishment exactly because the punishment focused on the dogs, not on Vick.
And the reason why there was no need for media publicity about the slain man's family was probably beacause they were paid off a reasonable sum as compensation, they in all probablity had Social Security, Medicare etc. What did the dogs have? If PETA had not made a hue and cry about it, what do you think would have happened to the dogs? They would either have starved or been euthanized. But i guess you dont care about that.You are correct -- the Korean really does not care what would have happened to those dogs. They are dogs. Mario Reyes' family is human. And the concern for humans must always, always, always come before the concern for dogs. Furthermore, while you idly assume that Reyes' family was getting provided for, no one in the media gave a peep about Reyes' family getting provided for.
2) Some people have commented on Leona Helmsley. After September 11, 2001, she donated $5 million to help families of New York firefighters. Among other contributions, she also gave $25 million to New York's Presbyterian Hospital for medical research. In addition to that if she was a dog lover, that is none of anyone's business.For the record, the Korean does not think Helmsley did anything wrong. It is her money, and she can spend it however she sees fit.
3) The argument about human beings being 'animals' just doesnt hold water in the 21st century. If we are just animals preying over ALL other creatures on the face of the earth, why not just go around naked. Why even bother to cover ourselves up since no ther animal on earth does that. The reason why we are on the top of the food chain is not because we are the smartest, its because there is no species left on this earth that the human being has not killed for food, amusement or other possessions.We do not go around naked because we are civilized humans. The Korean also pointed out in the post that as civilized humans, the worst aspects of our current meat consumption must change. Those aspects most certainly include caging dogs in a tiny cell and beating them to death, as well as industrialized farming.
But civilization cannot mean that humans are supposed to give up their most essential nature. And humans' most essential nature includes eating meat. Again, there has never been a human society that did not consume animal protein, except for those human sub-groups which are compelled by a self-made construct (i.e. religious or personal morality.)
4) I very much doubt that dogmeat is 'traditional' food in Korea. The fact that it has healing and aphrodisiac properties was just a rumour spread around by dog meat cultivators. There is no sicentific or medical truth to back up this claim.
Please refer to an edit made to this post on 9/20/2009 at 4:47 p.m. for a New York Times article that shows dogs were initially tamed in China for food. In Korea, there are
wall paintings that were made as early as 4th century that depict dog eating. Also,
traditional medical books in Korea dating back to the 15th century speak of the medicinal effect of dog meat. Does this mean that those effects are real? Not necessarily. But dog meat is certainly a traditional food in Korea.
Honestly the argument that dog cultivators are poor people who cannot afford humane conditions for the animals is utter crap. Agreed they cannot afford to spend too much. But is the fact that they beat up dogs to terrorize them before killing also because they are poor? Or because they are barbaric? Beating the dog so that another Korean can belchand then fill his sh**pot with dog corpses the next day is nothing short of indescribable brutality.As the Korean explained in the post, dog meat dealers generally electrocute the dogs, like the way cows are slaughtered. Beating only happens in rural areas for self-consumption, and even that is being prevented by the newly enacted Animal Protection Act, referenced in the edit on 9/1/09 at 8 p.m.
5) It is SO easy to go vegetarian and it is SO unnecessary to inflict so much pain on another fellow being. All said and done, we can have a satisfying meal without meat (unlike tigers or lions) and butchering animals is CRUELTY. The question is not about what is necessary and what is not. If you want to be a vegetarian, please feel free to be that. But the problem starts when you want other people to change what they eat. Eating is one of the most intimate forms of human interactions with the world. It is highly context-sensitive. And you want to change Korean people's eating habits by imposing your own frame of thoughts, in which dogs are considered a "fellow being." Hell no. Dogs are no human's "fellow being". To even suggest that is insulting.
-EDIT 3/14/10- More objections!
You tell us not to try to change people's opinion about this, but what are you doing here?No, the Korean told you to go fuck yourself. You can try to change people's opinion all you want. But please, do go fuck yourself.
Your post is definetly [sic] a pro dog meat one and indirectly, even --maybe-- you don't realize this,it's pro cruelty to these animals!!You completely ignore what the Korean clearly wrote in the post:
And yes, treating animals with dignity and respect means that the current way in which dogs raised for their meat in Korea must change. The tiny cages must go, and so must the unsanitary living condition for those dogs. The method of slaughtering the dogs must be regulated as well, so that the dogs may end their lives in a humane, dignified manner.From your words I can only see that human is an animal, nothing more, he has no compassion and reason to differentiate from animals.You again completely ignore the clear words from the post:
[W]hile there can be no moral judgment attached to the fact that humans eat meat, there can be moral judgment attached to how humans eat meat. This is just like the fact that humans are supposed to have sex, as it is their biological destiny to have sex. However, morality dictates that there are certain restrictions as to how sex may be conducted in human society.
Similarly, the Korean believes that humans need to treat the animal that sacrifices its life for our benefit with dignity and respect. Why do you bother commenting if you are not even going to read what is written?
In another point of view, civilized countries and modern society in general, fight for human & animals [sic] rights and try to produce minimum of suffering to the animals bred for consumption.This is the concept of civilization and humanity.. (if [sic] things don't go like this around the world is because of the people that consider themselves above all things , they're cruel or indifferent to the nature and all the creatures.Those who eat meat are just as guilty as those who provide it ; there is no offer without a request)So there is not a single civilized country in the world, according to you. That's reasonable... how?
It's suffering as much as a human would suffer, the pain is the same, so as the will to live, just like you!Every living thing has a will to live. That's why it's alive.
Plants also go through all kinds of effort just to stay alive -- so do you object to eating them too?
If you can't put yourself in its place and care about what happens, (it can be called also empathy by the way)I doubt that you would care about other people! So stop pretending that you care about human rights,or what happend to that guy and his family, I don't think you care!not even for a second, so stop being hypocrite! [tired of sics]Right, the Korean does not care about other people and human rights. That's why he urges his readers to
vote for
CPAF and
LiNK multiple
times. Because the Korean totally does not care, "not even for a second."
I also think that there is a simple explanation to the fact that you can't find anything about Reyes .. but so much about Michael Vick ..Well ..they are so many car accidents and news about this, (and also so many animals killed by cars, but you don't hear so often about this,or someone to really do something about.. right?!)There are NOT so many car accidents where a high-profile NFL player recklessly kills another person by driving drunk. And the NFL player gets 30 days in jail for killing a person, while Vick gets nearly two years in jail for killing dogs (in a sentencing that completely disregards normal sentencing jurisprudence.) Think about that.
I'm sure that they would have been much more protests and a higher penalty if this guy had done that to human beings instead of dogs..(so it's not like animals are before people,don't worry.. or you do you agree with what he did?!in that case something is wrong with you!)Your logic makes no sense. Federal Sentencing Guideline says that for the crime that Vick committed (which is "running a gambling ring involving animals",) Vick should get between 0 to 6 months in prison. Instead, Vick got 23 months, in complete disregard of the guideline. And the crimes that do get 23 months in our justice system are involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and sexual abuse of a ward (i.e. a child in one's supervision. By sentencing Vick at 23 months, our justice system decided that killing dogs was equivalent to killing a person or molesting a child. Really? REALLY? If you really believe that, there can be no other conclusion -- you are putting animals before humans.
And yet again, you ignore what the Korean wrote:
To be sure, animal cruelty – and specifically, what Vick did – is despicable. Animal abuse has to be illegal because we wish to discourage the abuser’s twisted desire for sadism. Read the post before you comment, will you?
My korean friends don't agree with dogmeat and also told me that it's more like an old people practice..not so common among young people..See here:
Survey. The linked survey is at an animal protection site in Korea that opposes dog eating. The survey asked if people were in favor of "legalizing" dog meat, and people in their 20s were most in favor of legalizing dog meat.
you call yourself "a korean", just this..in this way, you identify yourself with the whole nation .. who gave you this right?First of all, the Korean calls himself "the Korean", with a definite article. And he got that right the same way you got the right to imply that you are an Irish by choosing a handle "Ginger".
if you'll delete my comments (like I saw that you did to others )this means that you don't have the courage to support your point of view in a civilized way, you can not accept criticism, (immaturity or lack of arguments maybe?)and you don't allow others to explain their opinion.. so what's the point then to keep this blogg ?That's rich when
your compatriots at KARA shut down their comment board while the Korean is sitting here responding to your drivel.
-EDIT 4/6/2010-
More objections, this time free of invectives.
I've read a few pieces on this blog and I must say I'm a little surprised to find The Korean get so hostile and defensive as to tell people who disagree specifically with dog-eating to go fuck themselves. I hope by trying to set out the reasons I have against it, I can convince The Korean that not all those who disagree are mere sentimental woolly-minded idiots.Matt, the Korean has been dealing with dog meat opponents for years, and you are the first one who managed to make a coherent argument without resorting to invectives. The Korean appreciates that, and he is now convinced that not all those who disagree are sentimental woolly-minded idiots -- now, all but one who disagree are sentimental woolly-minded idiots.
When the goal itself is to produce pain, however, there is simply no defense. Beating an animal to death is immoral and barbaric.The Korean absolutely cannot understand why people cannot read the clearly written words of the post. Of course the Korean agrees with you, Matt. This is what he wrote in the post:
And yes, treating animals with dignity and respect means that the current way in which dogs raised for their meat in Korea must change. The tiny cages must go, and so must the unsanitary living condition for those dogs. The method of slaughtering the dogs must be regulated as well, so that the dogs may end their lives in a humane, dignified manner.The Korean said there is nothing special about this because it's canine nature; in other words that there is no moral value to a dog's loyalty because they do it by instinct rather than choice. I find this odd. ... just because an emotional bond has evolved doesn't make it invalid. For instance, you can equally well say that a mother nurturing her child is following evolutionary programming, but no one would say that means it has no moral value. Instead, we regard the mother-child relationship as beautiful, moral, or even sacred.Even though evolutionary programming may dictate human mothers to care for her children, a significant portion of human mothers nonetheless abandon their children all the time. In fact, most human mothers feel the temptation to abandon their children from time to time. It is the
choice that the human mothers make that enables us to call them moral. In contrast, it was not the dogs' choice to be loyal and affectionate. The degree of loyalty and affection of feral dogs is certainly not the same as that of domesticated dogs. Whose choice it was that the domesticated dogs are to be loyal? It was a
human choice. Dogs had nothing to do with it other than having the right genetic makeup that responded to human needs. That does not make dogs any better than any other animal.
The Korean may ask why anyone with no personal relationship with a dog should care. Firstly, it's not just a matter of having a personal relationship with a dog, but of valuing such relationships in general and seeing dogs as at least potentially of value to someone. This is the situation in the Anglosphere countries in general, and in northern Europe and in fact many other regions of the world.That's an argument that may be used to ban dog eating in Anglophone countries (which you anticipate), or an argument that may be used to ban stealing another person's pets to eat regardless of the country. But that argument cannot support the proposition that no one in the world, including Koreans, may eat dogs.
Again, The Korean may ask why anyone not from one of these dog-loving countries should care. Because, I think, cultures can learn from one another. People in England, for example, have started to learn that there's nothing disgusting about squid and therefore gained from the knowledge. Koreans, I believe, are already starting to learn to value the relationship with dogs, and, once people in general realise how special dogs are, the attitude to dog-eating will change.The Korean thinks this is an utterly incorrect argument. You state that cultures
can learn from one another, but your true argument is that Korea
must learn from other cultures and stop eating dogs. Why must Korea learn from any other culture? Why can't Anglophonic countries learn from Koreans that dog meat is hearty, lean and delicious? Or better yet -- and this is the Korean's position -- why can't Anglophonic countries just LEAVE KOREANS ALONE? How can one -- other than by resorting to either purely personal preference or bald cultural superiority -- explain that the value of relationship with dogs is so great that no one (including those who do not share those values at all) should be eating dogs?
This is not the past: there is no longer any shortage in Korea of other sources of animal protein. Dog-eating can no longer be justified as important to the diet...Because your position is incorrect, your argument is bleeding into argument in favor of vegetarianism, with which
you explicitly stated that you disagreed. At the present, you can single out any type of food in the world and correctly, but meaninglessly, argue that there is no need to eat that type of food. This argument is as hollow as stating, "There is no need to eat spinach, because you can get the same kind of nutrients from the abundant brussels sprouts that we have." Vegetarians make a huge push based on this argument ("Because of modern farming, we can get all the protein we need from plants!") while completely disregarding that, with modern technology, it is also possible to have a healthy, meat-only diet as well.
As the Korean stated above, the point of being able to eat dog meat is NOT about necessity. Again, no single food in the world is absolutely necessary. The point is
the ability to eat what you want, without being bothered by the arbitrary and exogenous cultural prohibition being imposed upon your choice for dinner. Eating is one of the most personal activities you can do; it is one of the primary ways by which we exist in and interact with this world. The fact that dog meat opponents dare to dictate what people may or may not eat, particularly when there is absolutely no bodily harm caused by consuming dog meat (unlike, say, consuming cigarettes,) is what pisses off the Korean enough such that he tells those people to go fuck themselves.
-EDIT 7/6/2010- A few more objections and questions.
Those definitions are contrived by the anthropocentric perspective of humans, so of course, animals will be defined as inferior. However, justifications of animals suffering and cruelty based on notions of a human's superiority is problematic. Historically, humans have justified their debase actions against other humans based on differences of appearance, language and perceived ability. Depraved acts against animals are justified in the same way. The lesson: if you continue to discriminate against other life forms because they don't look like you, speak your language, or have an ability equal to yours; then, my friend, we will never transcend racism, as, that rationale is wholly the basis of oppression and tyranny across cultures.Your argument is ludicrous. Should we not use barbed wire to keep our cattles in, because historically barbed wire has been used in concentration camps?
Outside of Seoul, can you give evidence or perhaps stats that verify this: [Then they are generally electrocuted.] The reason I ask: it is my understanding ... that the dog must be beaten for the meat to taste good and for the stamina benefits. This is not just from over zealous vegans but from the 6 different teacher classes I have taught and each time the story is the same from all of my teachers. Have you tried asking them if they prefer going to a restaurant that beats dogs to death rather than electrocuting them? It is a common (mis)understanding that dog must be beaten to death in order for it to taste good. It does not mean that the method is always employed. It is common understanding that a dry-aged steak tastes better; but not every steak restaurant serves dry-aged steak.
As to stats, there is none that the Korean could find. Which makes sense, because dog meat restaurants are not exactly a focus of studies. The Korean's experience is that only personal slaughtering and consumption involves beating dogs to death, because it takes too long to kill a dog for one to make a business out of it.
[before being processed and shipped to restaurants.] This may be true in most of Korea as I recognize I have only been here 2 yrs and lived in only one part of Korea, however from the evidence I have seen with my own eyes is the dog is not pre-process before the restraurant. If that was so then the cages behind the restaurants would not exist, and the trucks filled with packed dogs in front of the restaurants would not exist, and the small cages that you go and choose the dog you want to eat that day would not exist. So, is this only in Seoul where the space needed to beat the dog doesnt exist, or what may account for this discrepancy?You probably saw a restaurant that is also a ranch; those are common in rural areas.
Last, I agree the single best thing would be to legalize it and regulate it, but what I think advocates fear is by doing so Korea will only wink at those that don't follow the laws. ... So in the end I think most sane advocate (not the bumbling minded vegans) believe the best policy is a full abolishment of it. Again, priorities. Suffering of dogs should be much, much lower in the priorities list, and absolutely cannot overtake people's choice of what to eat.
What do you say about these arguments specifically? "Korea was traditionally a Buddhist nation and therefore beating dogs for meat would have never been a 'traditonal food.'" Stupid. Korea has
not been a Buddhist nation for the last 700 years, since the Confucian-based Joseon Dynasty replaced the Buddhist Goryeo Dynasty. And even in Goryeo Dyansty and earlier, there is no shortage of records about eating meat, including dog meat.
"Just has there are examples of ancient paintings that include dog slaughter for meat, their [sic] are also examples of paintings of dogs as referenced as a good luck charm And it could be deducted that something that is referenced as a good luck charm would not be beaten to death and eaten." Also stupid. Pigs are considered extremely lucky in traditional Korea; pigs showing up in dreams are considered the best dreams, foretelling money and happiness. But Koreans eat pigs liberally.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@hotmail.com.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at 
