South Korea banned dog meat. So what happens to the dogs?

When he isn’t preach­ing the word of God, Rev­erend Joo Yeong-bong is rais­ing dogs for slaugh­ter.

Busi­ness is not going well though. In fact, it’s on the brink of becom­ing ille­gal

Since last sum­mer we’ve been try­ing to sell our dogs, but the traders just keep hes­i­tat­ing,” Mr Joo, 60, tells the BBC. “Not a sin­gle one has shown up.”

In 2024, the South Kore­an gov­ern­ment imple­ment­ed a nation­wide ban on the sale of dog meat for con­sump­tion. The land­mark leg­is­la­tion, which was passed last Jan­u­ary, gives farm­ers like Mr Joo until Feb­ru­ary 2027 to shut­ter their oper­a­tions and sell off their remain­ing ani­mals.

But many say that isn’t enough time to phase out an indus­try which has propped up liveli­hoods for gen­er­a­tions – and that author­i­ties still haven’t come up with ade­quate safe­guards for farm­ers or the esti­mat­ed half a mil­lion dogs in cap­tiv­i­ty.

Even those who sup­port the ban, includ­ing experts and ani­mal rights advo­cates, have flagged issues around its enforce­ment – includ­ing the dif­fi­cul­ty of rehom­ing dogs that, hav­ing been saved from the kill floor, now face the increas­ing­ly like­ly threat of euthana­sia

Joo Yeong-bong says he’s wor­ried about the reper­cus­sions of South Kore­a’s dog meat ban

Mid­way through the grace peri­od, dog farm­ers are find­ing them­selves with hun­dreds of vir­tu­al­ly unsellable ani­mals, farms that can’t be closed, and lit­tle means of putting food on the table.

Peo­ple are suf­fer­ing,” says Mr Joo, who is also pres­i­dent of the Kore­an Asso­ci­a­tion of Edi­ble Dogs, a group rep­re­sent­ing the indus­try. “We’re drown­ing in debt, can’t pay it off, and some can’t even… find new work.

A storm of obstacles 

Chan-woo has 18 months to get rid of 600 dogs.

After that, the 33-year-old meat farmer – who we agreed to anonymise for fear of back­lash – faces a penal­ty of up to two years in prison.

“Real­is­ti­cal­ly, even just on my farm, I can’t process the num­ber of dogs I have in that time,” he says. “At this point I’ve invest­ed all of my assets [into the farm] — and yet they are not even tak­ing the dogs.”

By “they”, Chan-woo does­n’t just mean the traders and butch­ers who, pri­or to the ban, would buy an aver­age of half a dozen dogs per week. 

He’s also refer­ring to the ani­mal rights activists and author­i­ties who in his view, hav­ing fought so hard to out­law the dog meat trade, have no clear plan for what to do with the left­over ani­mals – of which there are close to 500,000, accord­ing to gov­ern­ment esti­mates.

“They [the author­i­ties] passed the law with­out any real plan, and now they’re say­ing they can’t even take the dogs.”

Lee Sangkyung, a cam­paign man­ag­er at Humane World for Ani­mals Korea (Hwak), echoes these con­cerns.

“Although the dog meat ban has passed, both the gov­ern­ment and civic groups are still grap­pling with how to res­cue the remain­ing dogs,” he says. “One area that still feels lack­ing is the dis­cus­sion around the dogs that have been left behind.”

A for­eign press spokesper­son from the Min­istry of Agri­cul­ture, Food and Rur­al Affairs (Mafra) told the BBC that if farm own­ers gave up their dogs, local gov­ern­ments would assume own­er­ship and man­age them in shel­ters.

Rehom­ing them, how­ev­er, has proven chal­leng­ing.

Since weight equals prof­it in the dog meat indus­try, farms tend to favour larg­er breeds. But in South Kore­a’s high­ly urbanised soci­ety, where many peo­ple live in apart­ment com­plex­es, aspir­ing pet own­ers often want the oppo­site.

There is also a social stig­ma asso­ci­at­ed with dogs that come from meat farms, Mr Lee explains, due to con­cerns of dis­ease and trau­ma. The issue is fur­ther com­pli­cat­ed by the fact that many are either pure or mixed tosa-inu, a breed that is clas­si­fied as “dan­ger­ous” in South Korea and requires gov­ern­ment approval to keep as a pet.

Mean­while, res­cue shel­ters are already over­crowd­ed.

This per­fect storm of obsta­cles points to a per­verse irony: that count­less so-called res­cue dogs, with nowhere else to go, now face the prospect of being euthanised

It’s just unbe­liev­able,” says Chan-woo. 

“Since the law was made accord­ing to the demands of these groups, I assumed they had also worked out a solu­tion for the dogs — like they would take respon­si­bil­i­ty for them. But now I hear that even the ani­mal rights groups say euthana­sia is the only option.”

Cho Hee-kyung, head of the Kore­an Ani­mal Wel­fare Asso­ci­a­tion, con­ced­ed in Sep­tem­ber 2024 that while rights groups would try to res­cue as many ani­mals as pos­si­ble, there would “be dogs left over”.

If remain­ing dogs become ‘lost and aban­doned ani­mals’ then it’s heart­break­ing but they will be euthanised,” she said.

More recent­ly, Mafra told the BBC it was invest­ing about 6bn Kore­an won ($4.3m; £3.2m) annu­al­ly to expand ani­mal shel­ters and sup­port pri­vate facil­i­ties, and would offer up to 600,000 Kore­an won per dog ($450; £324) to farm­ers who shut their busi­ness­es ear­ly.

A livelihood unravels 

Some have looked for solu­tions fur­ther afield, send­ing the ani­mals over­seas to more will­ing adopters in coun­tries like Cana­da, Unit­ed King­dom and the Unit­ed States.

In 2023, a team from Hwak res­cued some 200 dogs from a farm in Asan city – all of which have since been sent to Cana­da and the US.

The for­mer own­er of that farm, 74-year-old Yang Jong-tae, told the BBC that as he watched the res­cuers load­ing his dogs into their trucks, he was aston­ished by the lev­el of com­pas­sion they showed.

When I saw how they han­dled the ani­mals — like they were han­dling peo­ple, so gen­tly and lov­ing­ly — it real­ly moved me,” he said.


“We don’t treat them like that. For us, rais­ing dogs was just a way to make a liv­ing. But those peo­ple from the ani­mal group treat­ed the dogs like they were indi­vid­u­als with dig­ni­ty, and that real­ly touched my heart.”

Mr Yang has­tened to add, how­ev­er, that he dis­ap­proves of the ban on dog meat farm­ing.

“If dog meat is banned because dogs are ani­mals, then why is it okay to eat oth­er ani­mals like cows, pigs or chick­en?” he said. “It’s the same thing. These things exist in nature for peo­ple to live on.”

Eat­ing dog is not the same as eat­ing oth­er meats, accord­ing to Ms Chun. She points out that dog meat car­ries more risk from a food safe­ty and hygiene per­spec­tive — espe­cial­ly in South Korea, where it has not been inte­grat­ed into the for­mal, reg­u­lat­ed meat pro­duc­tion sys­tem.

The meat is also con­sumed in coun­tries such as Chi­na, Indone­sia, Viet­nam, Laos, Myan­mar, parts of north­east­ern India and sev­er­al coun­tries in Africa, accord­ing to Humane World for Ani­mals.

But while con­sump­tion rates have fluc­tu­at­ed through­out Kore­a’s his­to­ry, it has become increas­ing­ly taboo in South Korea in recent years.

A gov­ern­ment poll from 2024 found only 8% of respon­dents said they had tried dog meat in the pre­vi­ous 12 months – down from 27% in 2015. About 7% said they would keep eat­ing it up until Feb­ru­ary 2027, and about 3.3% said they would con­tin­ue after the ban came into full effect.

Since the ban was announced, 623 of South Kore­a’s 1,537 dog farms have closed.

As soci­ety and cul­ture have evolved, South Kore­an soci­ety has now made the deci­sion to stop pro­duc­ing dog meat,” Ms Chun says