By Brett Lee
Someone recently asked me what surprised me most about being on the city council. I replied that I was surprised at the wide range of issues that we encounter on a regular basis.
In order to be effective, we must remain focused on the big issues. For me, some of these big issues are paving our roads, maintaining the fiscal sustainability of our town, protecting/improving the downtown, and making sure that development decisions balance the near neighbors’ concerns with needs of the entire community.
Having said that, we still get thrown issues that should be dealt with at some level. Gandhi? Coyotes? Historic bathrooms? Our community rightfully expects that we have the bandwidth to pay attention to all sorts of items.
Recently, we starting receiving a large number of emails expressing concerns about the treatment of dogs in Korea. The connection to Davis was made in the emails – “Why does Davis have a sister city relationship with Sangju Korea when the Koreans are mistreating dogs?”
Accompanying the emails was a link to this youtube video (Warning extremely graphic and disturbing images):
My general view is that people of sovereign nations should be allowed to live as they as nation choose to live. It is not my position to tell people how they should or should not live. I do not need someone from another country telling me whether or not I should be able to eat a hamburger or not.
At first I mentally placed the emails I was receiving in the “low priority” category; I would get to them eventually. I then received another dozen of these emails from people all over the world telling us (Davis) that we should sever our sister city ties with Sangju Korea or that we should express our disapproval of how the dogs were being treated to the government of Sangju. I became more curious and watched the video.
The video is pretty powerful stuff. It was, in fact, quite moving and heartbreaking. (please watch it to understand what I am talking about).
The video clearly shows that something is wrong. I needed help to place it in context though. It is quite possible that someone could come to the US and film illegal dog fights here and claim that people should boycott the US for the mistreatment of dogs. Out of context, it could be a compelling argument. But in context, the vast majority of people in the US disapprove of dog fighting, it is illegal, and if we catch people doing it we arrest them. So, in context it seems a little unfair to claim people should boycott the US for dog fighting when it is illegal and most people are opposed to it.
So my question was this – can someone help me place this video in context? I need to understand the context of the video in relation to what the laws are in Korea and what the general sentiment is in Korea concerning the treatment of dogs.
I reached out to a friend of mine – Luis Ambriz a recent UCD grad who had some spare time (he is currently conducting a job search) and asked him if he would research this issue for me.
This is what he wrote:
The Movement Against
The group behind the video is the Humane Action Alliance (HAA), comprised of South Korean animal rights activists. They are also supported by Koreandogs.org, a group based in Northern California that runs a blog advocating for the cause.
In 2013, the HAA launched the “Stop It Korea!” campaign in South Korea to end the multimillion dollar dog meat industry that many claim is illegal and inhumane. While both the group and the campaign appear to be legitimate and free from ties to private companies, the reasoning behind the campaign may seem questionable.
The group appeals to Eurocentric or Westernized standpoints on animal rights, but fails to recognize how differing cultures and customs can change stances on animal rights. In one instance, their Change.org online petition describes dogs as “loyal”, “faithful”, and even as “trusting companions,” descriptions consistent with American and Western treatment of canines as domesticated animals..[1]
While the group is entitled to their opinion on dog meat consumption, they do not have the right to dictate whether others should adhere to the group’s cultural values because not all cultures view dogs as purely domesticated animals. A large group of South Koreans see them as a food option or a cultural delicacy.
Using the videos for proof of mistreatment and inhumane conditions for animals raised for meat consumption is fair use. However, their use of the videos to attack others’ cultural values should not go unnoticed.
General View on Dog Consumption
Note the cultural and social acceptance of dog meat consumption in South Korea. While some sources estimate that anywhere from 5-30% of Koreans have tried dog meat in their lives, only a small fraction of South Koreans consume dog meat regularly.[2]
“A 2014 poll taken in South Korea revealed that while just over half of those questioned do eat dog meat, the vast majority of them (95 percent of female and 88 percent of male respondents) only eat it very rarely.”[3]
However, there is a large understanding amongst many Koreans that others possess the right to eat dog meat if they choose to do so.
Korean nationalists and many high-ranking officials within the government often voice their support for the consumption of dog meat. While dog meat is not a hierarchical food option, it is evident that the older generation is more likely to support the idea.
This sentiment is not as popular among the younger generation. In 2007, the Korean Ministry of Agriculture conducted a survey that found about 60% of Koreans under the age of 30 do not believe it is culturally relevant and oppose the consumption of dog meat.[4]
Ultimately, the argument of cultural relevance fails to uphold as many Koreans, especially youth, are against dog meat consumption and more so against the inhumane and mistreatment of dogs within the country.
Legality of Dog Consumption
Under current South Korean law, consumption of dog meat is not technically illegal. There is debate among the Korean population regarding the legality of the issue but dictating food laws do not explicitly state that dog meat consumption is illegal.
In 1991, the South Korean government adopted the Animal Protection Law. Article 7 of the law does not specifically prohibit the slaughter of dogs for meat but instead “prohibits killing animals in a brutal way”.[5]
The loophole allows for dog meat to go under-regulated because it is not classified as a type of meat under the Livestock Processing Act of 1962. Confusion occurs because the advocates on the petition claim that six laws are broken when dog meat is consumed. They use evidence taken from KARA’s (Korean Animal Rights Activists) June 2016 informational booklet (found here). The petition states the six laws that are accusedly being broken, which are:
Violation of Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act
Violation of Animal Protection Act
Violation of Control of Livestock and Fish Feed Act
Violation of Act on the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases
Violation of Waste Control Act
Violation of Food Sanitation Act
The main argument is not whether there are laws against dog consumption, because there does exist a loophole that allow for it, but whether the treatment of the dogs as meat for human consumption is fair or safe under current Korean laws.
The video of the law-breaking dog farms proves that these laws of sanitation, maltreatment, and animal rights are violated in the Korean dog meat industry. Supplemented by the sheer number of dogs being raised on farms (~17,000 farms supplying over 2 million dogs annually), the regulation of the market and slaughterhouses is questionable even if agencies did so.[6]
Lack of government presence and authority in the dog meat industry adds to decreased law enforcement. Since dogs are not classified as livestock, slaughterhouses and meat markets are unregulated by certain Korean food agencies which leads to general animal mistreatment.
Dogs are slaughtered by any means including electrocution, strangulation, and physical beatings, all classified as inhumane slaughtering methods on dog breeding farms.[7]
Currently, the legal status of dog meat consumption remains contested in South Korea but activists are attempting to add dog meat to the list of consumed livestock that require strict regulation or are working to ban dog meat from consumption altogether.
In December 2016, the government took a step in the legal direction and banned the dog meat trade in one of its largest markets, making a statement against the inhumane slaughtering of dogs in the country.[8]
Conclusion
While defenders of dog meat consumption argue that no laws are broken because dog meat is not considered livestock, their mistreatment and unsanitary holding of dogs should be more regulated by the government. The unethical ways the dogs are treated make the act of trade, possession, and sale of dog meat illegal under animal rights laws, and the industry is in dire need of immediate attention from the South Korean government.
If we look at the issue as solely a cultural difference, then it would be simpler to keep Sangju as a sister city. However, because the city is sanctioning the dog meat industry and the participants in said industry are ignoring animal protection laws, we must do more to prevent widespread mistreatment of animals in the food industry on a global scale.
The status of Davis’ sister city should be removed from Sangju, South Korea, until more action is taken to regulate and legitimize the dog meat industry, either at the city level or on a national scale. It is not a cultural issue; it is a humanitarian issue and the city of Davis needs to act accordingly.
So, what do you think? If you have watched the video http://youtu.be/3uR8R8Mu70Q
and read the report above, I am curious what your thoughts are. My position will not be determined by “votes” (number of people saying “do this” or “do that”); I am really curious to hear what you think and I remain open on this.
FYI – My inclination is to support Sangju as a sister city, but to officially express my concerns about the treatment of dogs.
[1]https://www.change.org/p/mayor-robb-davis-of-davis-tell-sister-city-sangju-korea-that-we-re-opposed-to-the-torture-consumption-of-dogs-cats
[2] http://koreanfood.about.com/od/koreanfoodbasics/f/DogMeat.htm
[3]http://www.hsi.org/issues/dog_meat/facts/dog-meat-trade-faqs.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/?referrer=http://www.hsi.org/issues/dog_meat/facts/dog-meat-trade-faqs.html
[4] https://www.causes.com/posts/900675
[5] http://www.koreaobserver.com/former-pets-slaughtered-for-dog-meat-across-korea-25566/
[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/world/asia/south-korea-dog-meat-trade.html?_r=0
[7] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/294627.stm
[8] http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20161213000847
The post Guest Commentary: Should Davis Sever Sister City Relation over Korean Mistreatment of Dogs? appeared first on Davis Vanguard.