Jakarta (AFP) – Sitting at an empty Jakarta stall, Alfindo Hutagaol gobbled down some rice, green sambal and grilled dog meat -- a meal that is now banned in the Indonesian capital.
The Muslim-majority archipelago is one of a handful of countries that still permit the sale of dog and cat meat, but a campaign against the practice has been gaining ground in recent years.
While Muslims do not eat dog meat, it is popular in some of Indonesia's other communities.
This week, Jakarta's authorities announced a ban in the capital on trade for the consumption of rabies-transmitting animals, including cats and dogs.
The prohibition, with a six-month grace period before enforcement begins, was hailed by animals rights groups who have long lobbied against the trade.
But for Alfindo, who spoke to AFP before the ban was announced, "there should be no such prohibition."
"God created it to be eaten. Don't only look for the negative side, but also look for its benefits too," the 36-year-old told AFP.
Dog and cat meat are not widely consumed in Indonesia, but in some communities canine meat is considered a home remedy for dengue fever.
The trade "can't be eliminated suddenly", said another consumer, 43-year-old Sunggul Sagala, who described dog meat consumption as a "tradition" for some communities.
The Tuesday announcement by Jakarta's governor covers trade for consumption of all rabies-transmitting animals, including bats, monkeys and civets.
"This is a real example and real commitment from the Jakarta government as a global city that also advances animal welfare," said Merry Ferdinandez of the Dog Meat Free Indonesia (DMFI) coalition that lobbied for the ban.
The move does not extend to other regions where consumption remains popular, but might "encourage" similar moves, she said.
A poll commissioned by DMFI in 2021 found that 93 percent of Indonesians rejected the dog meat trade and wanted it banned.
Yet a DMFI study the following year estimated 9,500 dogs, mostly wild animals caught on the streets, were brought into Jakarta for consumption that year, mostly from West Java, where rabies is endemic.
Nationwide figures for dog and cat meat consumption are not available.
Jakarta has been officially rabies-free since 2004 -- one of 11 Indonesian provinces with that status -- and the ban was "one of the efforts" to maintain that, said the capital's food resiliency, maritime and agriculture agency head Hasudungan Sidabalok.
While it is no longer common to see dog meat sold openly either at markets or restaurants, he said 19 restaurants still serve the dish and at least two slaughterhouses are operating, expressing hope the new regulation would "minimise" such practices.
"It's not an easy step because it is a habit or perhaps a culture for certain communities, which we hope can change," he told AFP.
"The act of slaughtering or consuming dog meat... is still risky as it can transmit rabies to the slaughterers or consumers."
Jakarta's government will publicise the ban during the six-month grace period, after which violators face sanctions ranging from written warnings to revocation of business licenses.
Hasudungan said the government is preparing rules to detail further enforcement and sanctions against violators.
Indonesian laws on food and animal husbandry do not explicitly ban the consumption of canine and feline meat, but a 2018 directive issued by the agriculture ministry stated that dog meat is not categorised as food.
Some regions have already imposed their own bans, leading to arrests of traders.
In the Central Javan city of Semarang, which banned the trade in 2022, authorities last year intercepted a truck carrying more than 200 dogs bound for a slaughterhouse, and arrested five people.
In Jakarta, increased oversight by authorities has already effectively forced the trade underground.
Restaurants that once openly advertised dog meat dishes no longer do so, nor will owners speak to outsiders about the trade. Meat is also no longer sold openly in markets.
The taboo around the trade means only trusted customers can buy it and the meat is now more expensive than beef, said Sunggul.
Even before the ban, "the fact is that... purchasing dog meat is like looking for drugs," he said.
There have been no explicit plans for how to deal with animals that may no longer have buyers. A similar ban on dog meat in South Korea has caused problems for traders left with animals that can no longer be sold and are not easy to rehome.
And Alfindo argues dog meat fans might even be forced to prey on Jakarta's stray dog population if the ban is enforced.
"The government should rethink the policy," he said, after finishing his dish.
That is a very weird statement to make.
You are aware that cultures diverge over time and form new cultures unique to specific regions. Right?
Cultures that eat dogs. Often do so because dogs lost their importance as hunting partners, and were not valued enough as companions to warrant food rations. They instead became a competitor for food. And source for food.
Even cultures that historically didn't eat dogs as part of their normal cuisine. still did so when times were tough. I'm thinking mainly of Europe here. Aside from your "average hard times", sieges were long and brutal. No one is safe when humans start to get hungry.
But when times got better, dogs took a step off the menu. Valued for their companionship, their tracking abilities, and ability to learn new behaviors. E.g. sheep dogs.
Another example of an animal we used to eat, but is now much more rare, is horse. Horses are large animals. And when they died, it was just not economically feasible to let such a large animal go to waste. It's only in recent times that horses got off the menu as their numbers dwindled due to losing their economic importance.
Cattle are cheaper to raise for meat than Horses are. And horse milk just never really took off the same way cow milk did. So we stoped eating them. Because the only people that kept Horses, were those who valued them for their companionship.
Any other questions?
I didn't ask any questions. You essentially called it evolutionary adaptation, and I disagreed
I can largely agree with this. But also, it feels kind of dissatisfying if the answer to "why do we permit the torture and slaughter of tens of billions of mammals and fowls, and hundreds of billions of fish, every year, but we want very badly to ban the eating of dogs specifically?" is just "people in countries where dog eating is illegal just tend to like dogs more." That may answer the very literal question that weird vegan asked, but it doesn't answer the implicit question: why should dogs get a pass when the other animals don't?
As to the first part, "why we permit torture", I'm not gonna go into that tangent, I'm just gonna say I don't think we generally permit torture of animals, (I know there are some exceptions and I dislike them as much as you do) and I too find it reprehensible when it occurs through inhumane living conditions. Our opinion of what constitutes inhumane living conditions might slightly differ. I also really hate that we allow some specific breed of dogs, and would love to see them banned, especially those that are prone to various painful conditions. Regardless, as to the latter part of your question
I can probably give you some answer of why I think, historically, dogs get a pass, though I fear you might find that answer equally dissatisfying, So I'll share a bit of my personal experience with dogs if you care to read it. And perhaps it will showcase my position on the matter. And I'll preface it with saying I don't think this experience is unique to me. I think there are lots of people with similar stories.
I grew up with dogs. Literally, from the time I was born, until I was 16. Started out with two samoyeds, one adult, one puppy. And I've been told numerous times. How incredibly protective those dogs were of me. Following me around, making sure I didn't get into danger, alerting my dad the moment they thought I needed help. The younger pup, by the time I could walk, were following me around everywhere I went, making sure I didn't get hurt, and when she thought I might go somewhere I shouldn't, like, towards the stairs. The basement, The door leading outside. She'd herd me away in another direction. Placing herself between me and where-ever she didn't want me to go. My dad "jokes" about letting the dogs babysit me while they were outside in the stable. Except it's not a joke. They really did. in hindsight, probably not the best parenting. But that's another topic.
Anyhow, that is my reason, for why I view dogs, as mans best friend. I can only surmise, that dogs have exhibited this behavior for far longer than we've kept records. Thus earning themselves a very high status in our societies. At least in Europe and societies that are heavily influenced by Europeans.
I would love for you to watch Dominion and then get back to me on this. We literally have laws against reporting animal abuse on farms in the US. As for your story, it did an excellent job restating what I already said: people simply like dogs better. That a lot of people have had positive experiences with cats and dogs doesn't make them less deserving of a youthful slaughter than any other animal.
This might come as a shock to you. But the US isn't the world. And I already said I detest deplorable living conditions of animals, so, what do you want? Do you want me to say the US meat industry is bad? Sure. It's bad. The US style of democracy is also bad. Doesn't mean I think we shouldn't have democracy in my country just because the US managed to fuck it up.
If that's your opinion that's your opinion. Most of us that don't want to eat dogs, would disagree and say that it does make them "less deserving" (your words) of slaughter.
You're the one that asked why. And I've given you an answer as to why. Though it's obvious you were never interested in the answer. You just want to create conflict by arguing our opinions isn't good enough and that we should want to eat dogs as much as other animals.
So, your worst case scenario, is that people agree with you. You don't think that's a bit counter-intuitive?
If you ever wondered why people are so adversarial when it comes to vegans. You're the reason.
Paraphrased. Ag-gag laws exist in many countries besides the US, and I can 100% guarantee that your region is just as abusive to your farm animals as the US or Australia.
You've given the answer as to why do dogs get a pass, but that's still not an answer as to why should dogs get a pass. Unless your ethical framework is really as base as thinking "me liking something makes it good and me not liking something makes it bad," in which case I don't think you're really capable of engaging in this conversation.
What does this even mean
Now you're just being childish. I neither said nor implied that my country was better than yours, I don't even know where you are from. I didn't care to ask, because frankly, it's not relevant.
That is a very big claim. Do you have anything to actually back it up with? Or are you just throwing words around hoping something will stick?
You're asking for an opinion. And you already know my opinion. I even said as much in the very first comment you replied to me in. I said "It makes plenty of sense why most humans are against eating an animal that has protected us for thousands of years." and "We protect them, they protect us" which is just a way of saying "We protect each other".
Again, you're just being childish. I've done nothing but engage with you in good faith and answered your questions honestly and thoroughly. Notice how I don't attack your views, or person, just because they are different than mine. You've taken every opportunity to argue that dogs should be food. And I have not once attacked you or your views.
If I were to say, Damn, you know what. You're right. I agree with you. What have I agreed to? I have agreed with your argument that dogs shouldn't get a pass. That we should eat them. Which I assume, you are against. You don't want people to eat dogs. You don't want people to eat any animal at all, correct?
But I disagree with you. I do think dogs should get a pass. For all of the reasons I've stated throughout. So again. Your worst case scenario, is that someone agrees with you. Which is an interesting course of approach, to say the least.