QUOTE
You don't eat dog because they are man's best friend. Besides dogs are 80 percent sh!t anyway. In the Philippines we don't eat dog, only the chinese immigrants do.
QUOTE
Who eats more dog chinese or vietnamese.
QUOTE
We don't eat dog in the Philippines were civilized. Only asian countries have people who eat dog ala Vietnam. Maybe you are refering to the vietnamese who live in the Philippines.
QUOTE
Im sorry we don't eat dog in the Philippines. But we make a sh!t load of money by selling our stray dogs to Vietnam. They seem to can't get enough of that stuff.
A dog barking=food in vietnam
A dog barking=food in vietnam
QUOTE
The Dog Meat Trade in Baguio City and Cordilleras
Dog meat eating has been associated with the Cordillerans or the Igorots, even before the American era. In fact, Igorots were described by an American author in the early 1900’s as dog eating people.
To date, every Igorot or Cordilleran is faced with that stigma, most especially nowadays that dog eating has become commercialized.
While Ilocanos and residents of the nearby provinces also eat dog meat, majority or almost 95% of the dog meat being eaten in the country is consumed in Baguio City and the rest of the Cordilleras.
But the dog meat supply in Baguio City and La Trinidad Benguet come from as far down the Southern Tagalog provinces like Laguna and Batangas. Sources also revealed that there are frozen dog meat which come as far as Mindanao.
The passing of R.A. 8485 or the Animal Welfare Act in 1998 did very little to help.
As a matter of fact, despite the law, restaurants serving the dish (dog meat) are growing in number, and are being allowed to operate by the local governments of Baguio and Benguet. In Baguio City and La Trinidad alone, there are about 20 restaurants and eateries serving dog meat as a specialty. This is aside from the other restaurants who have dog meat in their menu cooked as azucena or samlok (but not a specialty). A known restaurant in Session Road serves dog meat (samlok). Even local officials are known as dog meat eaters, who patronize these restaurants.
Since the passage of the law, there was no actual effort from the local governments of Baguio and Benguet to stop the trade. In fact, two of the thriving restaurants serving dog meat and maintaining illegal slaughterhouses are just a stone’s throw away from the Benguet Provincial Capitol.
The apprehensions done by the police on those inhumanely transporting dogs for dog meat purposes are either accidental (in lieu of a traffic violation), or spearheaded by NGOs.
There were already pocket apprehensions in 1998 of motorists violating the law. However, it was only in the year 2000 when the Political Animal Lobby (PAL), a United Kingdom based non-profit organization, initiated a raid on dog slaughterhouse with the cooperation of the DILG’s Task Force Jericho. The 2 cases filed out of the raid, however, were dismissed by the Court.
In the second quarter of 2002, another foreign based organization, the International Wildlife Coalition (IWC)– UK headed by Charles Wartenberg, also tried to initiate a police raid on dog slaughterhouses. However, Wartenberg and his cohorts ended up facing a case of violation of the law themselves, filed by Baguio-based group, Linis Gobyerno. The case is the first to be filed in the Baguio City Prosecutor’s Office and in a Baguio Court. Linis Gobyerno has accused Wartneberg and cohorts of violating the Animal Welfare Act, when they unjustifiably subjected the dogs to euthanasia
Animal welfare cases going nowhere
Complaints regarding the illegal dog meat trade were never treated seriously in this part of the region. As observed with the turn of events in almost all of the cases that were filed in line with R.A. 8485 or the Animal Welfare Act, after pleading guilty, violators will just pay the fine, or pay the bail bond, then they go back to their dog meat trading business. The records of the Baguio and Benguet Prosecutors’ offices show that as of June 25, 2003, 18 complaints have already been received by their respective offices. 5 of which were filed at Tuba-Sablan MCTC, 8 at La Trinidad MTC, and 5 at the Baguio MTC.
Out of the 18 cases 2 were dismissed while 7 are still on going trial. The respondents in 9 cases were convicted.
All those convicted, however plead guilty upon arraignment. None of those cases reached a full blown hearing. The violators were just made to pay the fine that ranges from P1, 000 to P5,000. Most of them however were meted with a P2,500 fine, a far lesser expense than pleading “not guilty” and having a lawyer to defend them. The latest offender who plead guilty at the La Trinidad MTC was made to pay a measly fine of P1,000. The judge’s explanation for the ridiculous fine is because the respondent is a first offender. So far the highest fine imposed is P5,000, meted to a certain Severina M. Ortega, it being her second conviction for the same offense.
The heaviest penalty on the other hand was imposed on Enrique P. Panlaque. On his latest conviction, Judge Tomas Tolete of Tuba MCTC imposed upon him a penalty of 6 months imprisonment. Panlaque however applied at once for probation, which was objected by prosecutor Lilian Oliva. Her opposition which was received by the court on April 14, 2003 states that Panlaque is a repeat offender, because he was already convicted twice earlier on by the same court and by a Pasay City Court for the same offense. Aside from his convictions, Panlaque is also facing another case for the same offense (illegal and inhuman transporting of dogs) before a Baguio City MTC. The Judge’s order on the same date (April 14), however did not make any mention of the points raised by Pros. Olivia.
If that is sickening there is more.
Severino Bugayong’s residence cum dog slaughterhouse located at Km. 3, La Trinidad was raided for the first time on October 2000. Adding insult to injury Bugayong apparently was able to secure a business permit for his illegal activity, as evidenced by his business plate, numbered 0415. The case against Bugayong, who was 75 years old at that time, was dismissed by La Trinidad MTC’s Judge Agapito K. Loagan Jr. Worse the confiscated items from his dog slaughterhouse such as blowtorch, knives, etc. were eventually released to him. On 2002, Bugayong was again arrested for the same offense. This time he plead guilty.
As it is, the law is perceived to be taken lightly even by the Judges, based on the penalties they give even to the repeat offenders.
Further, in all cases involving illegal transportation of dogs in inhumane manner, the vehicles used were ordered to be released by the judges, some even before the case were decided upon. In one case at La Trinidad MTC the CIDG objected to the release of the vehicle claiming that said vehicle was used several times for the same illegal activity.
It would also seem that the judges or prosecution do not consider the recovered dogs as part of the evidence. Nowhere in the judgment of all cases, made mention of the recovered dogs, their whereabouts, their conditions, and how they should be disposed off. Further out of 542 recovered dogs since 1998, 381 were turned-over to the Baguio City Veterinary Office, 73 were allegedly brought to the Manila City Pound, leaving 88 unaccounted for.
It is worthy to note however, that all cases brought about by apprehensions initiated by NGOs, the law enforcers were left alone to prosecute the case. The NGOs (international at that) never extended legal assistance for the proper prosecution of the cases. In all cases that reached the courts, it is only the case filed by Linis Gobyerno which is being assisted by the group’s private lawyer.
The law enforcers (in this place) themselves take this law lightly. In Tuba, Benguet for example, one known dog slaughterhouse operating since 1999, is just a few meters away from a Police Station, but the police never apprehended those involved.
In the Baguio City Market, dog meat is openly being traded, but nobody apprehends the sellers, not the City Licensing Office (under of the Office of the Mayor) which gives them business licenses; not the Market Task Force of the Baguio City Police Office. The first arrest conducted on the dog meat retailers, was on June 25, when a concerned citizen, by the name of Bythe Reed, went to the Market Task Force armed with a print out of the Animal Welfare Act (downloaded from the internet), and told the police to arrest 3 guys, who despite being warned, were blatantly selling dog meat.
But what can you expect from these law enforcers who are mostly dog eaters?
This is the reason why animal welfare advocates, think thrice before enlisting the assistance of the Cordillera based law enforcers for the raid and apprehension of the dog meat traders. It is a sad fact, that aside from PAL which taps the CIDG, others prefer the assistance of law enforcers outside of the Cordillera, which makes the entire process very costly.
But raid, apprehension, and the arrest of the offenders is the easiest part of the whole process of stopping the trade.
Freddie Farres, Executive of Linis Gobyerno said, that that battle starts after the apprehension and arrest. There are the recovered dogs that should be attended to, and there are cases that should be handled by competent lawyers so that the violators will be meted with the suited maximum penalty.
While PAL has turned over its recovered dogs to the City Pound, Farres expressed his dismay on how these dogs were handled, as the mortality rate is a whooping 85%. Another group, the Animal Kingdom Foundation (in which Wartenberg of IWC also belongs), has claimed to have brought the dogs they recovered to as far as Manila City Pound. The court responsible for the case was never informed of the status of the dogs. Maybe because the court never asked. In some apprehensions, there were no mention of where the recovered live dogs were turned over.
And while the law enforcers were left in the cold by the NGOs for the prosecution, the City Veterinary’s Office (handling the Dog Pound) was also left with the burden of handling the recovered dogs.
Dog adoption
Dog adoption was never heard of in Baguio City and the Cordilleras until the end of last year, when the City Veterinary’s Office started adopting out some of the dogs that were turned over to them by PAL and the law enforcers. Of the 389 dogs in their custody, 10% or 38 dogs were said to be subjected for adoption.
According to the City Veterinarian, Dr. Brigit Piok, the adopter is required to pay an amount of P390 for the dog’s complete vaccination (Distemper, Hepatitis Parvo-Leptospirosis [DH2 PL] and Canine Parvo Virus [CPV]). Anti-Rabies is also being given for free. In a private clinic, DH2 PL + CPV costs P350, or P40 less than what the City Vet. Charges.
But there appears to be a discrepancy in the amount which was said by the City Vet that they are charging and the amount which the adopters claim to have paid. In a research conducted by The Junction (in coordination with Linis Gobyerno), those adopters from the Slaughterhouse compound admitted having paid a meager amount of P60. Others claim to have paid P200-390. All of them however, thought that what was given to their adopted dogs are just Anti-Rabies. Apparently, the other shots were not explained to them.
And while the adopters were made to sign an adoption agreement, it appears that only 2 of them complied with the terms and conditions of the adoption. One of the conditions is for the adopter to take good care of the animal and to treat it as their own pet and shall subject it for periodic inspection by any authorized representative of the City Veterinary Office. However, based on the research, it appears that the adopters themselves did not treat the adopted dogs as their own pets, because 4 dogs have died, and 2 were sold. There is also one adopter who, according to his neighbors, allegedly slaughtered the dog and ate it although he did not confirm nor deny the allegations. He however cannot give a straight answer when he was asked about the whereabouts of the dog. As to the “periodic inspection” as stated in the agreement, it can be recalled that in an interview conducted earlier, Dr. Piok openly admitted that they do not conduct post adoption monitoring. The adopters also confirmed this by saying that no one from the City Vet, or from the PAL ever visited the dogs.
The agreement further states that the ownership of the animal shall remain under the adopter’s name and shall not be removed or transferred without written permission from the City Veterinarian, which is again another agreement only in paper because some of the adopters claim that the dogs they adopted were brought to their respective provinces, but the exact addresses were not given. It is also a question how the ownership can be legally transferred as the dogs are not registered and are not tagged. The agreement also states that, the adopter shall report immediately to the City Veterinary’s Office once the animal gets sick or dies. Based on the research, 4 adopted dogs died, 1 escaped but these were not reported. The other 21 dogs were not seen since some of the adopters are either not in their respective residences at the time of the interview or are no longer residing in the stated addresses. The neighbors of 10 adopters who are not at their respective residences, however said that they have seen no signs of dogs at the residences of the adopters.
Only one was seen to have a doghouse.
Out of the 38 dogs only 3 are confirmed to be alive and in good condition. These were adopted by a Korean couple, Sung Soo Lee and Huh Hee Kyung, and an elderly, Flora Armas of Loakan.
As it is, the dog adoption program of the City Veterinary’s Office needs a lot of improvement mainly procedures and implementation.
It is believed that the adoption program of the City Veterinary’s Office is an offshoot of the case filed by Linis Gobyerno against the Director of International Wildlife Coalition (IWC) in United Kingdom, a certain Charles Wartenberg, when he together with his cohorts “put down” or killed the recovered dogs thru euthanasia. R.A. 8485 is specific that the killing of dogs is allowed under certain conditions, but it should be done through the use of most scientific methods available as may be determined by the Committee on Animal Welfare. To date, the committee has not set the standard said “most scientific” method of killing the dogs.
It is also observed that based on the summary provided by the City Veterinary’s Office the recovered dogs in the year 2000 and 2001 were not reflected. Court records show that in the year 2000, at least 5 dogs were turned over by PAL to the dog pound. As to how those dogs were disposed off, is still not clear, as they were not accounted for.
http://www.linisgobyerno.org/dog_meat_trad...uio_city_an.htm
Dog meat eating has been associated with the Cordillerans or the Igorots, even before the American era. In fact, Igorots were described by an American author in the early 1900’s as dog eating people.
To date, every Igorot or Cordilleran is faced with that stigma, most especially nowadays that dog eating has become commercialized.
While Ilocanos and residents of the nearby provinces also eat dog meat, majority or almost 95% of the dog meat being eaten in the country is consumed in Baguio City and the rest of the Cordilleras.
But the dog meat supply in Baguio City and La Trinidad Benguet come from as far down the Southern Tagalog provinces like Laguna and Batangas. Sources also revealed that there are frozen dog meat which come as far as Mindanao.
The passing of R.A. 8485 or the Animal Welfare Act in 1998 did very little to help.
As a matter of fact, despite the law, restaurants serving the dish (dog meat) are growing in number, and are being allowed to operate by the local governments of Baguio and Benguet. In Baguio City and La Trinidad alone, there are about 20 restaurants and eateries serving dog meat as a specialty. This is aside from the other restaurants who have dog meat in their menu cooked as azucena or samlok (but not a specialty). A known restaurant in Session Road serves dog meat (samlok). Even local officials are known as dog meat eaters, who patronize these restaurants.
Since the passage of the law, there was no actual effort from the local governments of Baguio and Benguet to stop the trade. In fact, two of the thriving restaurants serving dog meat and maintaining illegal slaughterhouses are just a stone’s throw away from the Benguet Provincial Capitol.
The apprehensions done by the police on those inhumanely transporting dogs for dog meat purposes are either accidental (in lieu of a traffic violation), or spearheaded by NGOs.
There were already pocket apprehensions in 1998 of motorists violating the law. However, it was only in the year 2000 when the Political Animal Lobby (PAL), a United Kingdom based non-profit organization, initiated a raid on dog slaughterhouse with the cooperation of the DILG’s Task Force Jericho. The 2 cases filed out of the raid, however, were dismissed by the Court.
In the second quarter of 2002, another foreign based organization, the International Wildlife Coalition (IWC)– UK headed by Charles Wartenberg, also tried to initiate a police raid on dog slaughterhouses. However, Wartenberg and his cohorts ended up facing a case of violation of the law themselves, filed by Baguio-based group, Linis Gobyerno. The case is the first to be filed in the Baguio City Prosecutor’s Office and in a Baguio Court. Linis Gobyerno has accused Wartneberg and cohorts of violating the Animal Welfare Act, when they unjustifiably subjected the dogs to euthanasia
Animal welfare cases going nowhere
Complaints regarding the illegal dog meat trade were never treated seriously in this part of the region. As observed with the turn of events in almost all of the cases that were filed in line with R.A. 8485 or the Animal Welfare Act, after pleading guilty, violators will just pay the fine, or pay the bail bond, then they go back to their dog meat trading business. The records of the Baguio and Benguet Prosecutors’ offices show that as of June 25, 2003, 18 complaints have already been received by their respective offices. 5 of which were filed at Tuba-Sablan MCTC, 8 at La Trinidad MTC, and 5 at the Baguio MTC.
Out of the 18 cases 2 were dismissed while 7 are still on going trial. The respondents in 9 cases were convicted.
All those convicted, however plead guilty upon arraignment. None of those cases reached a full blown hearing. The violators were just made to pay the fine that ranges from P1, 000 to P5,000. Most of them however were meted with a P2,500 fine, a far lesser expense than pleading “not guilty” and having a lawyer to defend them. The latest offender who plead guilty at the La Trinidad MTC was made to pay a measly fine of P1,000. The judge’s explanation for the ridiculous fine is because the respondent is a first offender. So far the highest fine imposed is P5,000, meted to a certain Severina M. Ortega, it being her second conviction for the same offense.
The heaviest penalty on the other hand was imposed on Enrique P. Panlaque. On his latest conviction, Judge Tomas Tolete of Tuba MCTC imposed upon him a penalty of 6 months imprisonment. Panlaque however applied at once for probation, which was objected by prosecutor Lilian Oliva. Her opposition which was received by the court on April 14, 2003 states that Panlaque is a repeat offender, because he was already convicted twice earlier on by the same court and by a Pasay City Court for the same offense. Aside from his convictions, Panlaque is also facing another case for the same offense (illegal and inhuman transporting of dogs) before a Baguio City MTC. The Judge’s order on the same date (April 14), however did not make any mention of the points raised by Pros. Olivia.
If that is sickening there is more.
Severino Bugayong’s residence cum dog slaughterhouse located at Km. 3, La Trinidad was raided for the first time on October 2000. Adding insult to injury Bugayong apparently was able to secure a business permit for his illegal activity, as evidenced by his business plate, numbered 0415. The case against Bugayong, who was 75 years old at that time, was dismissed by La Trinidad MTC’s Judge Agapito K. Loagan Jr. Worse the confiscated items from his dog slaughterhouse such as blowtorch, knives, etc. were eventually released to him. On 2002, Bugayong was again arrested for the same offense. This time he plead guilty.
As it is, the law is perceived to be taken lightly even by the Judges, based on the penalties they give even to the repeat offenders.
Further, in all cases involving illegal transportation of dogs in inhumane manner, the vehicles used were ordered to be released by the judges, some even before the case were decided upon. In one case at La Trinidad MTC the CIDG objected to the release of the vehicle claiming that said vehicle was used several times for the same illegal activity.
It would also seem that the judges or prosecution do not consider the recovered dogs as part of the evidence. Nowhere in the judgment of all cases, made mention of the recovered dogs, their whereabouts, their conditions, and how they should be disposed off. Further out of 542 recovered dogs since 1998, 381 were turned-over to the Baguio City Veterinary Office, 73 were allegedly brought to the Manila City Pound, leaving 88 unaccounted for.
It is worthy to note however, that all cases brought about by apprehensions initiated by NGOs, the law enforcers were left alone to prosecute the case. The NGOs (international at that) never extended legal assistance for the proper prosecution of the cases. In all cases that reached the courts, it is only the case filed by Linis Gobyerno which is being assisted by the group’s private lawyer.
The law enforcers (in this place) themselves take this law lightly. In Tuba, Benguet for example, one known dog slaughterhouse operating since 1999, is just a few meters away from a Police Station, but the police never apprehended those involved.
In the Baguio City Market, dog meat is openly being traded, but nobody apprehends the sellers, not the City Licensing Office (under of the Office of the Mayor) which gives them business licenses; not the Market Task Force of the Baguio City Police Office. The first arrest conducted on the dog meat retailers, was on June 25, when a concerned citizen, by the name of Bythe Reed, went to the Market Task Force armed with a print out of the Animal Welfare Act (downloaded from the internet), and told the police to arrest 3 guys, who despite being warned, were blatantly selling dog meat.
But what can you expect from these law enforcers who are mostly dog eaters?
This is the reason why animal welfare advocates, think thrice before enlisting the assistance of the Cordillera based law enforcers for the raid and apprehension of the dog meat traders. It is a sad fact, that aside from PAL which taps the CIDG, others prefer the assistance of law enforcers outside of the Cordillera, which makes the entire process very costly.
But raid, apprehension, and the arrest of the offenders is the easiest part of the whole process of stopping the trade.
Freddie Farres, Executive of Linis Gobyerno said, that that battle starts after the apprehension and arrest. There are the recovered dogs that should be attended to, and there are cases that should be handled by competent lawyers so that the violators will be meted with the suited maximum penalty.
While PAL has turned over its recovered dogs to the City Pound, Farres expressed his dismay on how these dogs were handled, as the mortality rate is a whooping 85%. Another group, the Animal Kingdom Foundation (in which Wartenberg of IWC also belongs), has claimed to have brought the dogs they recovered to as far as Manila City Pound. The court responsible for the case was never informed of the status of the dogs. Maybe because the court never asked. In some apprehensions, there were no mention of where the recovered live dogs were turned over.
And while the law enforcers were left in the cold by the NGOs for the prosecution, the City Veterinary’s Office (handling the Dog Pound) was also left with the burden of handling the recovered dogs.
Dog adoption
Dog adoption was never heard of in Baguio City and the Cordilleras until the end of last year, when the City Veterinary’s Office started adopting out some of the dogs that were turned over to them by PAL and the law enforcers. Of the 389 dogs in their custody, 10% or 38 dogs were said to be subjected for adoption.
According to the City Veterinarian, Dr. Brigit Piok, the adopter is required to pay an amount of P390 for the dog’s complete vaccination (Distemper, Hepatitis Parvo-Leptospirosis [DH2 PL] and Canine Parvo Virus [CPV]). Anti-Rabies is also being given for free. In a private clinic, DH2 PL + CPV costs P350, or P40 less than what the City Vet. Charges.
But there appears to be a discrepancy in the amount which was said by the City Vet that they are charging and the amount which the adopters claim to have paid. In a research conducted by The Junction (in coordination with Linis Gobyerno), those adopters from the Slaughterhouse compound admitted having paid a meager amount of P60. Others claim to have paid P200-390. All of them however, thought that what was given to their adopted dogs are just Anti-Rabies. Apparently, the other shots were not explained to them.
And while the adopters were made to sign an adoption agreement, it appears that only 2 of them complied with the terms and conditions of the adoption. One of the conditions is for the adopter to take good care of the animal and to treat it as their own pet and shall subject it for periodic inspection by any authorized representative of the City Veterinary Office. However, based on the research, it appears that the adopters themselves did not treat the adopted dogs as their own pets, because 4 dogs have died, and 2 were sold. There is also one adopter who, according to his neighbors, allegedly slaughtered the dog and ate it although he did not confirm nor deny the allegations. He however cannot give a straight answer when he was asked about the whereabouts of the dog. As to the “periodic inspection” as stated in the agreement, it can be recalled that in an interview conducted earlier, Dr. Piok openly admitted that they do not conduct post adoption monitoring. The adopters also confirmed this by saying that no one from the City Vet, or from the PAL ever visited the dogs.
The agreement further states that the ownership of the animal shall remain under the adopter’s name and shall not be removed or transferred without written permission from the City Veterinarian, which is again another agreement only in paper because some of the adopters claim that the dogs they adopted were brought to their respective provinces, but the exact addresses were not given. It is also a question how the ownership can be legally transferred as the dogs are not registered and are not tagged. The agreement also states that, the adopter shall report immediately to the City Veterinary’s Office once the animal gets sick or dies. Based on the research, 4 adopted dogs died, 1 escaped but these were not reported. The other 21 dogs were not seen since some of the adopters are either not in their respective residences at the time of the interview or are no longer residing in the stated addresses. The neighbors of 10 adopters who are not at their respective residences, however said that they have seen no signs of dogs at the residences of the adopters.
Only one was seen to have a doghouse.
Out of the 38 dogs only 3 are confirmed to be alive and in good condition. These were adopted by a Korean couple, Sung Soo Lee and Huh Hee Kyung, and an elderly, Flora Armas of Loakan.
As it is, the dog adoption program of the City Veterinary’s Office needs a lot of improvement mainly procedures and implementation.
It is believed that the adoption program of the City Veterinary’s Office is an offshoot of the case filed by Linis Gobyerno against the Director of International Wildlife Coalition (IWC) in United Kingdom, a certain Charles Wartenberg, when he together with his cohorts “put down” or killed the recovered dogs thru euthanasia. R.A. 8485 is specific that the killing of dogs is allowed under certain conditions, but it should be done through the use of most scientific methods available as may be determined by the Committee on Animal Welfare. To date, the committee has not set the standard said “most scientific” method of killing the dogs.
It is also observed that based on the summary provided by the City Veterinary’s Office the recovered dogs in the year 2000 and 2001 were not reflected. Court records show that in the year 2000, at least 5 dogs were turned over by PAL to the dog pound. As to how those dogs were disposed off, is still not clear, as they were not accounted for.
http://www.linisgobyerno.org/dog_meat_trad...uio_city_an.htm
QUOTE
Dog-eating and my culture
by Bing A Dawang
JUST before World Animal Day, which coincides with the feast of St. Francis d'Assisi, the patron saint of animals, a local (USA) newspaper defended the dog meat trade in the Philippines, in particular in Baguio City and the Cordilleras, by claiming that dog eating is a part of the Igorot indigenous culture.
As a full-blooded Igorot, I take offence.
The newspaper quoted Isikias Isican, said to be curator of the St. Louis University museum, as saying that there is a clear cultural basis for butchering dogs because they were "butchered by Igorot tribes before going to war, or to cure certain afflictions."
Isican generalized that dog-eating is a part of Igorot tradition by recalling that in 1904 a few Igorot men and women were displayed at the Louisiana Purchase Exhibition ("world's fair") in St Louis, Missouri. Described as heathen Pagans, they butchered a dog as part of the show.
In the same article Hanzen Binay, formerly defence counsel for several dog meat traders and now a Benguet prosecutor, questioned the wisdom of the Philippine Animal Welfare Act. Stating that the law was supported by British animal advocates, Binay asked rhetorically why Britain does not respect the Igorot culture.
As an Igorot, I vehemently do not accept dog eating as my culture. I was not raised to eat dogs. Dog meat is not a part of my diet, nor has it ever been. I find it insulting that Igorots are branded as dog-eaters, not only in the Philippines but abroad. It is a shame, and because Igorots are Filipinos, dog-eating is a Philippine national shame.
It is true that in ancient times some Igorot tribes butchered their dogs before going to war. It was the belief of the then Pagan Igorot that the spirits of the sacrificed dogs would guard them in battle.
In times of tragedy, the family dog might also have been sacrificed to appease the spirits, and to assign the soul of the dog to guard the spirits of the living family members.
Dog sacrifice always connoted bad luck, tragedy, or death. When a family butchered a dog, which had to be the family dog, not just any dog bought from nowhere, the family was not feasting but was either mourning, in extreme pain, or involved in some other activity connected with death.
Dogs were not butchered as drunkards' fare, nor as a daily or regular part of the Igorot diet. Igorot families much preferred to avoid the circumstances which might lead them to sacrifice their dog.
Dog sacrifice for religious purposes is allowed under the Philippine Animal Welfare Act. But the act also requires that dog sacrifices must be recorded and reported. Five years after the law was passed, the Bureau of Animal Industry has yet to receive any such reports from the Igorot elders.
Igorot culture has greatly changed since 1904. Headhunting, for example, was also part of the Igorot culture and way of life 100 years ago. We now recognise and reject that practice as murder (would Isikias Isican expect this 'tradition' also to be 'respected'?). This is adaptation. This is cultural evolution. We discard bad customs and traditions, and adopt good ones from other cultures and as an Igorot, a Filipino, a law-abiding citizen, and a lover of dogs, if I see anyone butchering and selling dogs for meat, I will not hesitate to bring criminal charges.
Incidentally, anyone who believes that the Philippine Animal Welfare Act was passed chiefly through the lobbying of British citizens, or Americans, or members of any nationality other than Filipino is misinformed. Foreigners helped, but most of the work was done by Filippinos, represented by Philippine groups, including the Philippine Animal Welfare Society, reorganized in 1986 by Nita Hontiveros-Lichauco, and the Philippine SPCA, formed on December 13, 1904 (the year of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition), now headed by Edgardo Aldaba.
We have in common, besides our cause, one hero: the dog Dagul, an askal, whose kind are commonly captured and butchered. Dagul, however, was adopted by Wilmar Castillo and family. Dagul rewarded their compassion in May 2003 when he alerted Wilmar Castillo to an avalanche of mud just in time to save the young man's life.
Honoured with the Lewyt Award for Compassionate and Heroic Animals, as described in the September 2003 edition of ANIMAL PEOPLE, Dagul and Wilmar Castillo demonstrated the relationship that we believe should exist among humans and dogs. Kindness toward dogs and other creatures is fundamental to my culture.
Bing A Dawang is editor of The Junction regional newspaper and is a founding officer of Linis Gobyerno Inc, Baguio City, Philippines.
http://www.k9magazinefree.com/k9_perspective/iss16p3.shtml
by Bing A Dawang
JUST before World Animal Day, which coincides with the feast of St. Francis d'Assisi, the patron saint of animals, a local (USA) newspaper defended the dog meat trade in the Philippines, in particular in Baguio City and the Cordilleras, by claiming that dog eating is a part of the Igorot indigenous culture.
As a full-blooded Igorot, I take offence.
The newspaper quoted Isikias Isican, said to be curator of the St. Louis University museum, as saying that there is a clear cultural basis for butchering dogs because they were "butchered by Igorot tribes before going to war, or to cure certain afflictions."
Isican generalized that dog-eating is a part of Igorot tradition by recalling that in 1904 a few Igorot men and women were displayed at the Louisiana Purchase Exhibition ("world's fair") in St Louis, Missouri. Described as heathen Pagans, they butchered a dog as part of the show.
In the same article Hanzen Binay, formerly defence counsel for several dog meat traders and now a Benguet prosecutor, questioned the wisdom of the Philippine Animal Welfare Act. Stating that the law was supported by British animal advocates, Binay asked rhetorically why Britain does not respect the Igorot culture.
As an Igorot, I vehemently do not accept dog eating as my culture. I was not raised to eat dogs. Dog meat is not a part of my diet, nor has it ever been. I find it insulting that Igorots are branded as dog-eaters, not only in the Philippines but abroad. It is a shame, and because Igorots are Filipinos, dog-eating is a Philippine national shame.
It is true that in ancient times some Igorot tribes butchered their dogs before going to war. It was the belief of the then Pagan Igorot that the spirits of the sacrificed dogs would guard them in battle.
In times of tragedy, the family dog might also have been sacrificed to appease the spirits, and to assign the soul of the dog to guard the spirits of the living family members.
Dog sacrifice always connoted bad luck, tragedy, or death. When a family butchered a dog, which had to be the family dog, not just any dog bought from nowhere, the family was not feasting but was either mourning, in extreme pain, or involved in some other activity connected with death.
Dogs were not butchered as drunkards' fare, nor as a daily or regular part of the Igorot diet. Igorot families much preferred to avoid the circumstances which might lead them to sacrifice their dog.
Dog sacrifice for religious purposes is allowed under the Philippine Animal Welfare Act. But the act also requires that dog sacrifices must be recorded and reported. Five years after the law was passed, the Bureau of Animal Industry has yet to receive any such reports from the Igorot elders.
Igorot culture has greatly changed since 1904. Headhunting, for example, was also part of the Igorot culture and way of life 100 years ago. We now recognise and reject that practice as murder (would Isikias Isican expect this 'tradition' also to be 'respected'?). This is adaptation. This is cultural evolution. We discard bad customs and traditions, and adopt good ones from other cultures and as an Igorot, a Filipino, a law-abiding citizen, and a lover of dogs, if I see anyone butchering and selling dogs for meat, I will not hesitate to bring criminal charges.
Incidentally, anyone who believes that the Philippine Animal Welfare Act was passed chiefly through the lobbying of British citizens, or Americans, or members of any nationality other than Filipino is misinformed. Foreigners helped, but most of the work was done by Filippinos, represented by Philippine groups, including the Philippine Animal Welfare Society, reorganized in 1986 by Nita Hontiveros-Lichauco, and the Philippine SPCA, formed on December 13, 1904 (the year of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition), now headed by Edgardo Aldaba.
We have in common, besides our cause, one hero: the dog Dagul, an askal, whose kind are commonly captured and butchered. Dagul, however, was adopted by Wilmar Castillo and family. Dagul rewarded their compassion in May 2003 when he alerted Wilmar Castillo to an avalanche of mud just in time to save the young man's life.
Honoured with the Lewyt Award for Compassionate and Heroic Animals, as described in the September 2003 edition of ANIMAL PEOPLE, Dagul and Wilmar Castillo demonstrated the relationship that we believe should exist among humans and dogs. Kindness toward dogs and other creatures is fundamental to my culture.
Bing A Dawang is editor of The Junction regional newspaper and is a founding officer of Linis Gobyerno Inc, Baguio City, Philippines.
http://www.k9magazinefree.com/k9_perspective/iss16p3.shtml
QUOTE
I turned my suspicion towards the tricycle drivers, who hang out at the little bakery across the street from our house. It’s easy to suspect them, because they are never very friendly. These guys always struck me as a lower breed, perhaps lower than dogs. I recalled a jarring scene several weeks before when I saw some guys out catching dogs late one night on Sucat Rd., the main road which leads to our subdivision. I was driving by at about two in the morning on my way home. I heard the awful yelp of a dog, and quickly turned my head towards the cry. I saw a mangy brown mutt being scooped up inside a tricycle.
Of course, I couldn’t have stormed over to the bakery and accused the trike drivers of taking Shiggy as they would simply have denied it. But I vowed never to buy any food from the bakery anymore. Some of the neighbors were hanging outside their homes and I asked them if they saw anything. They all shook their heads. But the old lady across the street assured me that our dog was alive.
“No, no, they didn’t kill your dog,” she said. “Pure breeds are not very good to eat. They make you hot inside when you eat them. If you’re going to eat a dog, it has to be a street dog. So don’t worry. I don’t think they ate your dog. They probably sold it for P500.” Gee, how wonderful, I thought. Thanks Grandmom. I could smell cooking food wafting out of her kitchen and I excused myself before she decided to invite me to dinner.
http://www.hey-joe.net/excerpt03.html
Of course, I couldn’t have stormed over to the bakery and accused the trike drivers of taking Shiggy as they would simply have denied it. But I vowed never to buy any food from the bakery anymore. Some of the neighbors were hanging outside their homes and I asked them if they saw anything. They all shook their heads. But the old lady across the street assured me that our dog was alive.
“No, no, they didn’t kill your dog,” she said. “Pure breeds are not very good to eat. They make you hot inside when you eat them. If you’re going to eat a dog, it has to be a street dog. So don’t worry. I don’t think they ate your dog. They probably sold it for P500.” Gee, how wonderful, I thought. Thanks Grandmom. I could smell cooking food wafting out of her kitchen and I excused myself before she decided to invite me to dinner.
http://www.hey-joe.net/excerpt03.html
QUOTE
http://www.hey-joe.net/excerpt03.html]http://www.hey-joe.net/excerpt03.html
Yeh, I know. I should try being a dog in the Philippines and see how I like it. I should try sleeping in somebody’s dirty, mosquito infested car park night in and night out. I should try living with vermin like mice and endless parades of cockroaches and blood sucking ticks. I should try existing in a world where some of the big creatures think my flesh goes quite well with San Miguel Beer. I have thought about all that and, well, it doesn’t sway me. Every time I have tried to feel empathy and sympathy for a Philippine dog the emotion just dissipates. Probably had to go earn a living or something important like that.
Yeh, I know. I should try being a dog in the Philippines and see how I like it. I should try sleeping in somebody’s dirty, mosquito infested car park night in and night out. I should try living with vermin like mice and endless parades of cockroaches and blood sucking ticks. I should try existing in a world where some of the big creatures think my flesh goes quite well with San Miguel Beer. I have thought about all that and, well, it doesn’t sway me. Every time I have tried to feel empathy and sympathy for a Philippine dog the emotion just dissipates. Probably had to go earn a living or something important like that.
ejay1, your hipocrisy and ignorance....
holy! you did jmac?
i sorryy!! 
lol
.
In some parts of the Philippines people eat horses , according to them is is comparable to chicken but they never tired eating the horses which were used in race because of the residue of the medicines and hormones that have been injected .
In Pampanga, A province North of Manila they have several insect cuisine ranging from fried crickets, to beetles.
