[Animal Law Simulation] Eating Soon-to-be-Euthanized Dogs?

It's pretty funny how things you hate the most usually being the thing that you end up paying attention the most. Like my experience with the animal law, the more subject I object, the more productive I write about that matter - even in fact those writings might be rebuttal.

We had an interesting simulation in one of the class: Dog for Livestock Bill debate simulation. Yes, what I mean by simulation was a FAKE bill, fake opponents and sure, fake proponents. I was acting as one of the proponents of this bill, specifically, my role was a dog meat consumer, and during our work we collected some interesting materials. I summed that up in a 5 minutes speech which I'll just post in here, but I recommend you to read some more interesting articles in here. Anyway, here is the fake bill:

And, here is my *evil* but *rationale* speech! ENJOY!

DISCLAIMER: Please bring in mind that this is an argument for a simulation. It does not represent my personal opinion about eating dog meats, and even I do LOVE dog meats, I eliminate health concerns in here since my role (which is fake) was to advocate the bill. Consuming dog meats in the US is highly related to the vaccines and medications received by the dogs, and very possibly unsafe for human consumption.

Let me begin this with one question: What is the most delicious meat that you ever taste? Pork? Beef? Chicken? Turkey? Lamb?

What about meat that is as fatty as pork that it has a little taste of bacon; juicy as beef but inherit the same unique texture as lamb, and capable of warming up your body like wine?

“After eating dog meats, beef seems tasteless” – Mark Wiens, a famous food blogger confessed. What he said has repeatedly been spoken by many people who dared to step outside of their culinary comfort zone and eat dogs.

Source: toughtcatalog.com (2013)

Dog meats are exotic delicacy. And it is exactly the central reason why legalizing abandoned dogs as livestock can be a promising solution of our overarching problem with dogs overpopulation, dogs euthanasia and disposal of euthanized dogs.

There are three reasons why we believe this law is important for Otagon society as a whole, and dog meat consumers in particular: (1) We have enormous problems related to abandoned dogs and their euthanasia, which require an innovative solution; (2) There is an increasing consumer demands over dog meats in Otagon, making dog meats business a promising market – and a solution; (3) The scheme offered in this bill will force dog meats market to ensure dog welfare and hygienic practice.

But before proceeding further, I need to ensure that everyone in here departs from the same page to see the practice of eating dogs with rational, rather than emotional, considerations. Looking at this issue, we tend to react emotionally from our cultural bias. But let us think about this: Is it acceptable for Moslems or Jewish folks pointing their finger to us and saying that we are immoral because we eat pork? And is it justified for Indians to believe that everyone who eat beef is less civilized than them? Then do we really have strong reason, aside from our own cultural bias, to put a social prejudice upon people who is performing his personal dietary choice? This country, since our Declaration of Independence, has put a solid foundation and eventually succeeded in building a society who respects personal choices.

And yet, as a dog-loving society, we have successfully abandoned 6 millions of dogs and sent them to animal shelter; and eventually killed 3-4 millions of them with a method we call humane. It happens every single year. Department of Agriculture’s data shows that even organizations like PETA has euthanized more than 95% of the animals it rescued. And about 2 billion dollars of public money are being spent every year to maintain the shelter operations, the euthanasia, and the disposal of our dear friends’ dead bodies. The disposal itself also troubles the ecology and poses an environmental justice problem to the low-income community. Our problem is not resolved – it evolved.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I mentioned in my second point, the creative solution that we’re looking for is always there. The market demand is growing. Dog meats are considered delicacy in many parts of the world, including China, Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, some parts of Africa, even in Canada, and the list goes on. Top 5 countries of origin of the 17.3 millions of Asian Americans are actually dog-eating countries; and some of these folks brought their dietary culture with them, even influencing Americans to also try this delicacy. Overbrook, a town in Kansas, has been hosting more than 21 annual dog-eating festivals, a perfect example of American-Vietnam acculturation in terms of culinary preferences. As this bill is debated, at least one point of contact of every municipality in Otagon has let me know their support.

But as I mentioned in my third point, the current situation of the emerging dog meat market is terrible – both for the dogs and for the consumers. We might not know – but it’s there. Just like Philadelphia case, Otagon dog butchers using the available legal loophole, behind their closed doors – breeding, raising, and slaughtering dogs. It’s legal to do so, without any standards available, without any provisions to prosecute, without any inspections. I’ve been observing for 15 years how the sanitary standard is lacking, and how the traditional method of killing the dog is far behind our standard of ‘humane’. By having no inspected processor, the consumers lack certainty and information of safety level of the dog meat, posing themselves with the risk of trichinellosis or excessive level of chemicals within the dog’s flesh. By having no inspected processor, we let more dogs beaten to death under the silence of the law. The most suitable answer for this is law and regulation.

“Life’s most persistent and urgent question is ‘What are you doing for others?’ - Martin Luther King, Jr. said. We, the dog meat consumers, are offering to voluntarily bear the social stigma of eating dog meats so that it can compensate society’s burden caused by America’s excessive abandonment of our lovely friends. Think about it”

Some other interesting sources:

1. Slate, Wok the Dog (2002)
2. Earth Island, Why Environmentalists Should Care about Pet Euthanasia (2012)
3. CNN, The Argument of Eating Dogs (2014)
4. Mark Wiends, What Does Dog and Cats Meats Taste Like (2013)

In the matter of Answering "I Don't Know"

The deeper I know about a matter, the more I realized I have addressed many wrong questions in the past - which has been answered in a really wrong sense. Yap, I'm talking about those questions which sounds smart and challenging that the person who's been asked have no idea that that questions contained serious flaws. And they, in the light of their expertise, will rather pretending to be able to answer that 'wrong questions' than honestly answer 'I have no idea' or 'I must look it up first'.

This is one of the most true example of how many people will answer wrong questions:

"What do you think about the new rules issued by Ministry of Transportation to impose different gas prince for people based on their monthly income?" SMART! Beside the fact that I just made that issue up, the more important flaw is that there is NO Ministry of Transportation in Indonesia. And yet, people keep answering.

It makes me remember of one of the questions addressed by an interviewer during my Fulbright interview back home. When I mentioned how I wanted to learn more about EPA, and when I mentioned some amazing programs EPA administered and how I want to research about possibility of applying that in Indonesia, he asked me:

"Do you know that EPA will be dissolved soon?"

I thought hard if I ever heard of that before, and innocently answered "Really?" with a super dumb face. I decided pretending to know will possibly more risky because I really had no idea whether he's asking a true question or he merely tricked me. Later on after I started my courses in the US, his question made more sense to me. He probably was referring to the war on coal, of which the republicans started highlight more and more EPA's costly programs and policies, and framing EPA as 'killing capitalism'. And it become clear to me that such question is inherently wrong, and it could be really good test on how well a person knows, or pretend to know, EPA. If I were at the state of my knowledge right now, the most possible answer was "I know that Republicans have tried so hard to frame that for years - yet to my knowledge, there is no success effort in dissolving it. EPA has successfully nailed Republican efforts to stay away from US' duty in climate change so far"

Be careful with experts. Sometimes they don't realize that intentional mislead is a big academic sin.