5

There are a several articles online making this claim. They all seem to source a recent Daily Mail article:

North Koreans are ordered to hand over 'decadent and bourgeois' pet dogs for 'restaurant meat' as the country is rocked by food shortages

Kim Jong-un has declared that pet dogs are a symbol of capitalist 'decadence' and ordered that dogs in Pyongyang be rounded up - and owners are fearful that their beloved pets are being used to solve the nation's food shortages.

It attributes the claim to a source of South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper.

While trying to find more about this information, any article I could find would quote the Daily Mail.

Jordy
  • 3,846
  • 2
  • 24
  • 34
AoiTora
  • 61
  • 3
  • [National Post](https://nationalpost.com/news/world/kim-jong-un-orders-north-koreans-to-hand-over-pet-dogs-so-they-can-be-used-as-meat) from Canada seems to confirm that *Chosun Ilbo* is the original source as linked to by Laurel. [USA Today](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/07/25/north-koreans-dog-meat-summer-heat/839246002/) has a 2018 piece about dog meat consumption in North Korea as a general practice. – Brian Z Aug 18 '20 at 15:06
  • I note that there are two parts to this claim: the first is whether North Koreans are being asked to hand over their pet dogs, and the second is whether these pet dogs are then being turned into food. I suspect that the first part will be easier to confirm or debunk than the second. – F1Krazy Aug 18 '20 at 15:08
  • 1
    @Jordy: You appear to have made the question worse - to simply punt to Chosun Ilbo, rather than actually address whether the claim is true. Then you have taken advantage of that to give an answer that tells us nothing. Could you please explain why? – Oddthinking Aug 18 '20 at 17:57
  • In a brief search on this I discovered that this is not Kim's first time confiscating dogs. Apparently he believes keeping dogs as pets is a sign of Western decadence. Lots of media has covered this now, probably all from the same one source. I have low confidence in any answer based on that. –  Aug 19 '20 at 18:10
  • @Oddthinking, sorry I didn't get a notification so I never saw your question. To put it simply: OP was skeptic about the things The Daily Mail said, which often deploys sensationalism as editorial tactic. I.e. that Chinese people have to give up their pets so that they can be used in the food industry (e.g. see title). The fact that the original article from Chosun Ilbo tells a different story is enough to debunk the claim made by the Daily Mail. – Jordy Aug 26 '20 at 10:26
  • I concur that this question doesn't ask about the validity of the Chosun Ilbo newspaper, and my answer doesn't address that, but that is not what OP was skeptical about. So although I think it is valid to question the reliability of Chosun Ilbo, that should be a separate question altogether. – Jordy Aug 26 '20 at 10:28

1 Answers1

0

No. Dogs are being taken away (according to one source) but not because they can be consumed.

The Daily Mail make it seem like all 'decadent' dogs are being taken from all over North Korea to help with food shortages. The original source states that only the elite in Peongyang have to hand over the dogs because of the bad optics.

The Daily Mail references this article by South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper.

From the article (emphasize mine):

North Korea has launched a clampdown on the ownership of pet dogs among the Pyongyang elite as food supplies run short. Trumpeted as protecting the country against capitalist "decadence," the move appears aimed at appeasing increasing public discontent amid the dire economic situation.

The article states that the measure is to appease discontent instead of feeding the people. Note that dogs are only owned as pets by the elite and not the general public.

The article continues (emphasize mine):

Some of the dogs are sent to state-run zoos or sold to dog meat restaurants, the source added.

Apparently not all dogs are being consumed, instead they are sent to zoos.

The article also details how owning dogs is a status symbol in North Korea, and flaunting a luxury such as this appears to be forbidden now that there is a food shortage.

Searching for recent news articles on "North Korea dogs -Daily -Chosun" didn't result in any other news articles that didn't either reference the Chosun Ilbo or the Daily Mail. So it seems that Chosun is the original source of this story.

Jordy
  • 3,846
  • 2
  • 24
  • 34
  • Maybe the animals in zoos are being fed dog meat. If there's too little food for humans, imagine what food is left for carnivorous animals. Why else are dogs being sent to zoos? – Mari-Lou A Aug 18 '20 at 15:46
  • 7
    This seems more like a qualified "yes" than a "no". According to your source, at least some dogs **are** being taken away from their owners and sold to restaurants. – plasticinsect Aug 18 '20 at 15:46
  • 1
    @plasticinsect, the title question was: "Have North Koreans been asked to hand over their dogs to be eaten?" and the answer is no, because that was not the reason. – Jordy Aug 18 '20 at 15:52
  • @Mari-LouA, perhaps, but in a country where there are almost no human rights, why would animals get food before the general population? I read the entire article and I read it as if the prized dogs are taken away from the elite to be "given" to the population by placing them in zoos. – Jordy Aug 18 '20 at 15:54
  • Then what do you feed the *elite* dogs? Please cite where the article says the dogs will be kept in zoos. – Mari-Lou A Aug 18 '20 at 16:01
  • @Mari-LouA, I don't know. Believe it or not I am not a North Korean zookeeper. But I can imagine that a typical Chihuahua is just as exotic for a North Korean as a polar bear and I can also imagine that the meat harvested from a Chihuahua isn't worth the slaughter. Again, the article clearly states the dogs are being taken away from the elite. – Jordy Aug 18 '20 at 16:14
  • Your answer states that dogs are being taken away but not primarily for consumption. Maybe you should modify that part to "human consumption"? – Mari-Lou A Aug 18 '20 at 16:15
  • 3
    Does this answer have no skepticism for the NK claim that this move is about "appeasing increasing public discontent amid the dire economic situation"? What reason is there to think this isn't PR spin? Especially given at least some dogs are being sent to restaurants. – pip install frisbee Aug 18 '20 at 16:58
  • @pipinstallfrisbee, the fact that apparently not all dogs are eaten and that apparently not all dogs are taken away (only the 'decadent and bourgeois' pet dogs of the elite in Peyongyang) is for me sufficient reason to assume that feeding the masses isn't their primary intention. Feel free to write your own answer if you interpret the article differently. – Jordy Aug 18 '20 at 17:20
  • 1
    The meat on the bones of the pet dogs of the wealthy of the country isn't going to be a significant amount of food overall. Dogs generally eat 2%-4% of their bodyweight daily, which means that you'll save more than tat over a month or two of the dog being dead... and the country almost certainly doesn't have but so many "prized pet of the elite" to go around. – Ben Barden Aug 18 '20 at 17:50
  • 4
    -1: You haven't checked whether the story is actually true, and you are speculating on the motivations without any evidence. – Oddthinking Aug 18 '20 at 17:59
  • 1
    @Oddthinking, euhm... I only found the source for the Daily Mail article and applied basic reading comprehension. If the only source on the matter says that they aren't being taken away *just* so that can be sold to restaurant meat debunks the claim of the Daily Mail, which states that's the *only* reason this is being done. The fact that the Daily Mail misinterpreted the original source is proof enough to debunk the claim, regardless of the fact whether the story "is actually true". – Jordy Aug 21 '20 at 09:56
  • @Oddthinking, I don't even know where you think I am speculating about motivation, I literally only quote the original article and give a summary of what I didn't quote. – Jordy Aug 21 '20 at 09:57
  • Seeing as nobody reacts to my comments while the downvotes remain, I hereby propose a new internet adage: discussions aren't settled on the internet, it continues until there is one man standing. Or alternatively: discussions on the internet are a battle royale. The person left probably thinks he won the argument, the people who quit probably thought it wasn't worth the effort. – Jordy Aug 31 '20 at 13:56