Bill To Ban Dog, Cat Eating Irks Ethnic Groups

NaTaS · February 22, 2005, 8:29am

I’ve seen dog & cat meat for sale in China before, As well as been told some here still eat dog but keep it under the radar. I thought the slaughter of dogs and cats for consumption was illegal everywhere in the States?.
Bill to Bar Eating Cats, Dogs Stirs Debate

By JEANNETTE J. LEE, Associated Press Writer

HONOLULU - A state legislator is pushing a bill that would ban the slaughter of dogs and cats for food, drawing protests from members of some Asian ethnic groups who believe the measure is aimed at unfounded and racist stereotypes of their cultures.

Animal rights groups pushed for the bill’s introduction this month, even though joint investigations last year by the Hawaiian Humane Society and Animal Crimestoppers yielded no proof that anyone uses the pets as food.

State Rep. Glenn Wakai, who introduced the measure, said it is aimed at stemming the growth of a “cottage industry” with the potential to threaten public health. He said news reports last August about dogs being stolen and butchered in some Oahu neighborhoods proves there’s a problem.

Eating dog meat is tolerated in some Asian cultures, but many families from Asia settled in Hawaii generations ago and now consider the practice repugnant.

The measure was scheduled for a vote in the House this week, but the state Senate has not scheduled a hearing, Wakai said. It would make it a felony to kill, purchase or distribute any dog or cat for human consumption.

The news reports he cited were based largely on tips from Carroll Cox, president of the local environmental activist group Envirowatch, who said his own undercover investigation found evidence of the practice on Oahu.

But investigations of two of those tips came up empty, said Letha DeCaires, a Honolulu police detective and a coordinator for Animal Crimestoppers, part of the local nonprofit Crimestoppers program.

“Either the Humane Society or the police department followed through with every tip that we had,” DeCaires said. “There was no evidence of slaughterhouse equipment, butchering tools, or anything to substantiate such claims at the time we visited the locations.”

Cox claims the Humane Society mishandled the cases and blew his cover by alerting the media to his investigation.

“It is commonplace in Hawaii. It’s a practice that has been known, noted and documented and no one has touched it because it’s a cultural issue,” Cox said.

State Rep. Alex Sonson says the proposed measure is a reaction to hearsay and would harm the image of Filipinos, Koreans and other Asian ethnic groups who make up the majority of the state’s population.

“It perpetuates this myth that every Filipino is eating it,” Sonson said. “But they’re not.”

Frank Wu, dean of Wayne State University Law School in Detroit, believes the issue of eating dog is stressed “to caricature and condemn particular populations,” namely Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese and other Asians. Wu wrote about dog-eating in his book “Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White.”

Wakai said race is irrelevant to his proposed legislation.

“There’s no language in the bill that distinguishes certain ethnic groups or cultures of partaking in this type of practice,” Wakai said.

Rather, it is aimed at protecting pets or companion animals, said Jodi Buckman, director of animal protection services for the Denver-based American Humane Association.

“I cannot imagine this issue arising with the intent of racial and cultural bias,” Buckman said.

The slaughter and sale of dogs, cats or other animals considered companions is prohibited only in California, Delaware, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey and New York.

Honolulu resident Kim Soiti, who has a dog and two cats, thinks Wakai’s bill should be passed even if there is no evidence that anyone in the state is consuming dog or cat meat.

“Cats and dogs are great companions. They’re not stupid. They have emotions,” said Soiti. “Dogs and cats are generally household pets and are like part of the family.”

Hobbes · February 22, 2005, 12:00pm

So what’s your opinion about the proposed law, NaTaS?

I think most of us have a decent handle on the arguments in favour of this law, but what about the arguments against?

As far as I could tell, so far the opposition has made two arguments:

color=blue[/color] There are currently few-to-no reported cases of dogs and cats being eaten, so enacting this law is a waste of time.

color=blue [/color]The proposed law would “harm the image of Filipinos, Koreans and other Asian ethnic groups who make up the majority of the state’s population.”

I guess the question is: How compelling are these two arguments?

NaTaS · February 22, 2005, 12:56pm

I would be in favor of the law for sure. My argument would be seeing cats and dogs as domestic animals not for consumption. Then again I’m not for any animal being slaughtered for consumption.

As for the opposing arguments,

1: Just because there are no reported cases of dog and cats being eaten doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. The wife told me before that some stores here in Taichung use to have signs that said they sold ‘meat that smells good’ Which was code for dog.

2: ‘Harming’ the image of Asian groups in Hawaii over this is a weak argument. It’s common knowledge that dog and cat is eaten by some in parts of Asia. Most who know this know that not every Asian eats those animals. The only people who use that as a put down towards Asian’s are usually racists and there not going to stop using it as a sterotype over a law.

Tetsuo · February 22, 2005, 1:20pm

People eat cow too. Indians don’t like that. Some eat horse, which is a common pet in farming regions. Why draw the line at cats and dogs? What makes them any different?

Toasty · February 22, 2005, 1:36pm

I think NataS is being consistent in his position.

ididn_tdoit · February 22, 2005, 2:34pm

not accusing anybody here of hypocrisy, but there is a lot of arrogance and ingnorance amongst westerners when it comes to eating dogs. They are certainly not endangered, so how could anybody that justifies eating other intelligent animals (pigs are smarter than dogs) be upset about dogs being eaten.

I love dogs by the way, and I’m sure I would love pigs just as much if I was ever to befriend one of them as I have with dogs

Tetsuo · February 22, 2005, 2:38pm

I think NataS is being consistent in his position.[/quote]
I didn’t say he was being inconsistent. All I’m asking is what makes cats and dogs different?

system · February 22, 2005, 3:04pm

[quote=“ididn’tdoit”]not accusing anybody here of hypocrisy, but there is a lot of arrogance and ingnorance amongst westerners when it comes to eating dogs. They are certainly not endangered, so how could anybody that justifies eating other intelligent animals (pigs are smarter than dogs) be upset about dogs being eaten.

I love dogs by the way, and I’m sure I would love pigs just as much if I was ever to befriend one of them as I have with dogs[/quote]

Fair enough. I’d eat dog if I was really hungry. Just not my dog. But right, I’d sure roast my pig. I would not eat worms either but some ppl love em.

sandman · February 22, 2005, 3:13pm

Back to the topic. I believe the protests are valid. I mean, surely there are already a variety of animal cruelty laws, etc. that can be enforced in such cases? Or are there?
I’m pretty sure that in the UK there are all kinds of laws the courts could use to prosecute dog-eaters if they wanted to. Why the need for additional legislation?

Toasty · February 22, 2005, 3:25pm

I think NataS is being consistent in his position.[/quote]
I didn’t say he was being inconsistent. All I’m asking is what makes cats and dogs different?[/quote]

I’d say not much, actually. Cows and pigs are high trophic level mammals, just like dogs and cats. They are intelligent and feeling, just as cats and dogs are. Your point is a good one. How do we condemn others for eating cats and dogs while we eat cows and pigs? There isn’t much of a defense to our behaviour. We have somewhat arbitrarily labelled a few species of intelligent animal as family and other equally intelligent animals as food. Seen in this light, we have little right to be forcing our arbitrary distinction between supper and family members onto others. Although, as a dog lover, I still-- for some reason-- find the practice of fido food to be repugnant.

Comrade_Stalin · February 22, 2005, 3:54pm

[quote=“Tetsuo”]
I didn’t say he was being inconsistent. All I’m asking is what makes cats and dogs different?[/quote]

Different cultures go different ways. Western civilized Americans don’t eat dogs and cats. If you want to, stay in Manila, Seoul, Bangkok or Nangang.

compassionatetraveler.org/art/2000-12-01.htm
seoulsearching.com/DogMeat.html

NaTaS · February 22, 2005, 5:13pm

Not all Indians consider cows sacred. As far as I know it is only Hindu’s who view it such. As for horse eaters and it being a pet, I’ve never heard of any group eating horse, I don’t doubt it, just never heard of horse eaters. Horses on farms are used as laboring animals before pets usually. Dogs and cats are some what different because unlike other animals they have been domesticated for thousands of years. In many different parts of the world. The reason Jews and Muslims don’t eat pig is because of how pigs are. Thousands of years ago sitting in the sweltering hot desert heat seeing and smelling the pigs wallowing in there own filth and excrement turned them off from consuming it.

Why there making this law and putting it in the open, who knows. They stated there not targeting any ethnic group, and there have been reports of pets missing in one area, so I’m just guessing it’s just being put out in the open as a deterrent. It’s only offically illegal in seven States, Though when was the last time anyone in North America has been able to walk into a butcher shop and seen dog and cat on the menu?

All animals are sentient beings! One over the other doesn’t make slaughtering any for a food source right or justify doing it.

We as a species were not ment to eat meat. We scavenged kills left from predators and then used tools to take out animals later on. We can’t even eat most animals raw unlike all predators who can.

Put it like this, When was the last time you or anyone you know was able to run up along side a deer, pounce on it, sink your incisor and canine teeth into it and then start chowing down? Unnecessary because were ‘smarter’? A natural predator doesn’t need a made weapon to do so or fire to cook there kill to eat after they hunt. We weren’t ment to eat animals! Were just conditioned to favor certain ones over others.
Peace

Screaming_Jesus · February 22, 2005, 8:48pm

Isn’t making it a felony a bit much?

What about horse meat? The horse is a noble animal blah blah blah… And do people really eat those cute little bunny rabbits?

Maybe they could do it like peyote, and allow cultural exemptions for ethnic groups that are commonly recognized as dog-eaters.

Or an exception for breeds that were originally bred for meat, like chihuahuas.

ididn_tdoit · February 23, 2005, 12:51am

chihuahuas bred for meat??? wtf??? :loco:

not a lot of meat on those little rat like creatures

Wouldn’t something bigger make more sense???

Screaming_Jesus · February 23, 2005, 1:12am

Probably, I guess. This is what happened historically, though.

Lord_Lucan · February 23, 2005, 1:36am

I think people should only eat animals which aren’t cute and fluffy. And take the fur/hair off leather goods before they wear them. There, that should keep everyone happy.

Tigerman · February 23, 2005, 3:42am

Pigs are awfully intelligent. However, they have never shown the devotion to and love of humans that dogs have and continue to do. I think that is what distinguishes dogs and pigs, in this regard.

And dogs are generally perceived as better looking than pigs. Trivial, perhaps… but nonetheless important to many, if not most people.

Bu_Lai_En · February 23, 2005, 5:41am

I’d be in favour of this bill becuase it could possibly save the lives of some dogs or cats.

I don’t see why killing other animals is any better than killing dogs or cats, but a law stopping the klling of, say, just cows, although inconsistent, would at least save the cows.

Brian

Omniloquacious · February 23, 2005, 5:45am

In an ideal world, or one in which I dictated all the laws, it would be illegal to consume the flesh of any kind of animal.

And although many of you omnivores express abhorrence at the thought of eating cat or dog, I’m sure you have done so countless times without being aware of it when you have eaten sausages, burgers, and other such foods containing unrecognizable bits of unidentifiable animals and God knows what else.

Comrade_Stalin · February 23, 2005, 5:48am

[quote=“Bu Lai En”]I’d be in favour of this bill becuase it could possibly save the lives of some dogs or cats.

I don’t see why killing other animals is any better than killing dogs or cats, but a law stopping the klling of, say, just cows, although inconsistent, would at least save the cows.

Brian[/quote]

How would it save cows? For what purpose do people raise and feed cattle? To eat and turn into leather shoes. If not for that why the hell would a rancher keep 3000 head of cattle? If America became vegetarian today, tomorrow we’d have several tens of millions of dead cattle because farmers wouldn’t want to pay to feed them. Unlike Fido, nobody has “Ole Bossie” sleeping in front of the TV in their livingroom.