Campaigners against eating dog meat cannot ignore the imbalance in animal protection rules

It is said that truth can sometimes be odious. Here is one truth: human beings, as nature ordains, need to feed on meat, which consequently leads to hunting and killing animals that are unfortunately links in our food chain. In a world embracing humanity and lofty manners, the fact indeed is hard to swallow for the virtuous.

As the wheel of civilization has rolled forward, more and more people have become squeamish about eating remarkable living things, with some turning to vegetarianism after yielding to their mounting moral senses. In a few cases, this heartfelt sympathy has been so strong it has impelled them to protective actions in unexpected situations.

The actions of the fervid dog lovers who recently intercepted a truck carrying about 400 doomed dogs on the Beijing-Harbin Highway have sparked heated public debate. On the face of it, the incident was a noble effort to save the lives of wretched creatures set for the dinner table, yet the action was also clearly in stark violation of highway regulations and posed potential hazards to other vehicles. So, was this rescue justified?

As with similar arguments, where no opinion seems cogent enough to override the other to attain a definitive conclusion, I want to ask what if it was a truckload of tigers instead of dogs? How might people react then?

I'm sure half of those negative judgments would disappear. To begin with, tigers are lawfully protected animals due to their role in maintaining ecological balance. Moreover, they were never customary food. Therefore, thwarting the abhorrent crime of trafficking tigers would not be against anybody's interests, and would readily excuse the breaking of highway rules.

Dogs are not so lucky. The controversy here is that the animal has long been on the menu in several cultures, including in China. Although it's obscene to see them being killed, hijacking a truck is still not the best way to prevent it from happening.First, we need to distinguish what dogs we're talking about. Pet dogs are "man's best friend", so of course it's reprehensible to use them for food. Yet, what about those dogs bred for the dinner table? It would be hypocritical for us to stand up against dog husbandry and at the same time turn a blind eye to the countless numbers of pigs, ducks and chickens being slaughtered.

The root of this dilemma is indiscriminate animal protection that ignores human instinct. It would be like barring the Dai ethnic group from observing their annual water-sprinkling celebration over concerns about wasting water. After all, compelling people into following a non-meat diet is incongruous with social customs and is less likely to effect real change.

Second, to truly eradicate the practice demands fostering a culture in which people are ethically obligated to decline dog meat. Asking people to quit cold turkey requires education and a systematic expostulation. Animal rights campaigners need to apply their passion to the conversion of modern consumption and to make people voluntarily take control of their wildly omnivorous appetites.

Personally, I hope the day will come when men can thrive at no cost to animals. Until then, I suggest we pray before eating as some Westerners do. That may infuse a sense of appreciation for our food, help us get around our moral guilt, and alert us to the sacrifice so we can keep cutting back on meat.

By the way, later reports suggest that only one dog in the truck was a stolen pet and that the driver had all the valid quarantine certificates. So, the rescuers may want to think it through before acting next time. One thing is for sure: the rescue won't do much to solve the dog meat issue.

The author works for Chinadaily website. To comment, e-mail metrobeijing@chinadaily.com.cn. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of METRO.

(China Daily 04/27/2011 page)