The idea of eating dogs is repulsive to most Americans, but it is common practice in other parts of the world. Is there a way to make it more palatable here?
One of the arguments against eating dogs is that they are treated inhumanely before they are slaughtered. Jill Robinson, founder and CEO of Animals Asia Foundation, an animal rights group based in Asia where eating dogs is common, said in an email to CNN that dogs are packed into cages where they often fight each other, tearing into each other's flesh.
She also said the actual slaughtering process is brutal:
In many cases, dogs are bludgeoned to death slowly. They are given a blow across the muzzle, using an instrument resembling a baseball bat. The blow is not hard enough to render the animals unconscious for long — they regain consciousness within seconds, and try to get up, sliding around in the blood and crashing into other dogs also flailing around. At this point they are howling pitifully in pain and confusion, with blood and mucus pouring from their nose and mouth — only to be bludgeoned again and again.
But CNN asks the question -- if slaughtering dogs can be done humanely, shouldn't we eat them? In a nation where so many dogs are euthanized, "doesn't it make sense to put those lives to good use?"
As Jonathan Safran Foer wrote in The Wall Street Journal:
The simple disposal of these euthanized dogs is an enormous ecological and economic problem. But eating those strays, those runaways, those not-quite-cute-enough-to-take and not-quite-well-behaved-enough-to-keep dogs would be killing a flock of birds with one stone and eating it, too.
What do you think? Can eating dogs be done humanely, or is it just wrong any way you look at it?
Is CNN off base for even suggesting it?