The cages are empty. But where have the dogs gone?—Hundreds of thousands disappear amid South Korea's dog meat ban

Pyeongtaek, located south of Seoul, South Korea. Once a cornerstone of the dog meat industry, the facility now only has rusted cages and collars left behind on the floor. The absence of human presence in the kennels indicates that an industry is nearing its end. Yet, a heavier question lies there.

Does the disappearance of dogs from the cages truly signify salvation?

In January 2024, South Korea enacted a law prohibiting the breeding, slaughtering, and selling of dogs for consumption purposes. After a grace period, the law will be fully enforced in February 2027. Violators could face up to three years in prison. This historic decision put an end to years of debate over dog meat in the country.

Dog meat was once consumed as a nutritious food during the summer by some. However, as pet culture spread, especially in urban areas, the perception of dogs shifted from "food" to "family" among younger generations. International scrutiny intensified, and animal protection groups had long criticized the poor breeding conditions and slaughter methods at dog meat farms. The enactment of the law was the culmination of these societal changes.

However, what emerged after the system was established was a gap on the ground, more than the law itself.

According to estimates by South Korea's Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, there were 400,000 to 450,000 dogs being raised for meat in 2024. However, by 2026, only about 20,000 dogs were said to remain on farms. Simply put, hundreds of thousands of dogs have disappeared from the farms.

To encourage the early closure of dog meat farms, the government prepared a subsidy of up to 600,000 won per dog for farmers who relinquished their dogs. As of May 2026, it was announced that 1,265 out of 1,537 dog meat breeding farms nationwide, or about 82%, had already ceased operations. Judging by the numbers alone, the policy is advancing rapidly.

However, the problem lies in the government's insufficient tracking of where those dogs went.

In an interview with AFP, an inspector from the agricultural authorities explained that before paying compensation, they confirm that "dogs are no longer at the farms or slaughter facilities." They do not involve themselves in what happens to the dogs afterward. In other words, the administrative confirmation is whether "the dogs have disappeared from the facilities," not whether "the dogs were rescued alive."

This difference is significant.

In reality, as of February 2026, it was reported that only 623 dogs were adopted and fewer than 500 were sent to shelters. Compared to the scale of 400,000 dogs, the number of confirmed rescues is exceedingly small. Of course, not all dogs' whereabouts are completely unknown. There are cases where farmers individually transferred the dogs, private organizations rescued them, or overseas protection groups took them in. However, when viewed as a whole, the final destinations of most dogs remain unclear.

Animal protection groups have pointed out the possibility that many dogs were slaughtered or euthanized before the full enforcement of the ban. Former farmers from the dog meat industry have also made statements suggesting that the missing dogs were likely already consumed. This harsh reality indicates that even if the law is enacted, if the industry disposes of its stock during the grace period, it does not lead to the rescue of dogs that were alive.

A representative from the animal protection group CARE stated that if a large number of dogs were truly moved to protection or adoption, the movement would have been visible to the group. The group has rescued about 2,500 dogs over more than 20 years, but many had to be placed overseas. In South Korea, there is a strong preference for small dogs, making it difficult for large or mixed-breed dogs raised for meat to be welcomed as family pets.

Here lies the most challenging point regarding the dog meat ban.

"Ending the dog meat industry" and "saving the dogs already on farms" are not the same. The former can be determined by law. The latter requires shelters, medical care, adoption destinations, training, transportation, and long-term care costs. No country can easily establish the social infrastructure needed to accommodate tens of thousands of dogs at once.

On social media, reactions are sharply divided on this point.

On X, posts by foreign media questioning "Where have the dogs gone?" have spread, with users concerned about animal protection criticizing, "It's a historic ban, but it means nothing if the whereabouts of the dogs aren't tracked," and "The government should include survival confirmation and records of adoption destinations as conditions for compensation payments." While welcoming the enactment of the law, many are questioning whether the dogs were actually saved.

Meanwhile, on English-speaking forums like Reddit, a more skeptical view is observed. Some point out, "It's not that the dogs were saved, but they simply won't be born for the industry in the future," and "The ban is necessary, but it may have resulted in a cruel outcome for the dogs during the transition period." Some express discomfort with singling out dogs, asking, "What's the difference between dogs and pigs, cows, or chickens?"

This point indicates that the dog meat issue cannot be discussed in a simple good-versus-evil framework. For many, dogs are like family. Hence, there is strong aversion to the dog meat industry. However, looking at livestock as a whole, humans continue to breed other animals for consumption. Even among those who support the dog meat ban on social media, there are voices saying, "This should be an entry point to consider overall animal welfare, not just a dog issue."

There are also complex circumstances within South Korea. Many dog meat farmers are elderly and have lived off this work for years. A former farmer expressed feeling "betrayed" by the dog meat ban. They perceive it as being politically decided and imposed without sufficient dialogue or plans for rebuilding their livelihoods. Some farmers are frustrated that attempts to switch to other livestock industries are delayed due to slow permits and are not progressing as hoped.

Past reports by the Associated Press also showed that the dog meat farmers strongly opposed the ban, claiming it infringed on their freedom of occupation and were prepared to take the issue to a constitutional dispute. While public opinion in favor of the ban is growing, the challenge of rebuilding the lives of those who worked in the industry remains. Balancing animal protection and livelihood compensation cannot be resolved through mere emotional arguments.

However, even if compensation for farmers is necessary, it does not justify the lack of transparency regarding the dogs' whereabouts. In fact, because there is a compensation system, the government should have recorded not only the confirmation of "dogs disappearing" but also "how they were transported, where they were protected, and how they were disposed of." Since compensation is paid with taxpayer money, the handling of the dogs involved has public significance.

Animal protection groups are concerned about this "legal void." In South Korea, dogs have not been clearly classified as livestock like cows or pigs, leaving the dog meat industry in a legally ambiguous position for a long time. As a result, adequate welfare standards have not been applied to breeding or slaughtering sites, and methods such as electric shocks or violent slaughter have been pointed out. The current ban aims to end this ambiguity.

However, during the grace period before the law is fully enforced, the most lives may have been at risk. The faster the closure of farms is pushed, the less economic reason farmers have to keep the dogs. If there are insufficient shelters, few adoption destinations, and inadequate administrative tracking, the dogs may be disposed of outside the system. The end of the industry does not necessarily mean the salvation of individual lives.

The anger spreading on social media is directed at this contradiction.

The narrative of "It's good because it's banned" is straightforward. The long-standing efforts of animal protection groups, the changing values of younger generations, the spread of pet culture, and international criticism have all contributed to South Korea choosing to end the dog meat industry. This is indeed a significant step forward.

However, there are too many empty cages to conclude with "It's good."

What was truly needed in the transition policy was individual dog registration, mandatory reporting of relocation destinations, public support for shelters, collaboration with private organizations, transparency in overseas adoptions, and records of slaughter or euthanasia if they occurred. Without knowing which dogs were moved, when, from where, and to where, the law risks merely making the industry invisible.

Of course, the effect of the dog meat ban in preventing new dogs from being bred for consumption purposes in the future is significant. If it can prevent tens of thousands of dogs from being born into this industry each year, it is a definite achievement. As noted in Reddit posts, "being saved" can be seen not as all existing dogs being rescued, but as preventing future dogs from bearing that fate.

Still, the whereabouts of the dogs already living remain a separate issue. Reducing future sacrifices and recording current ones are both necessary.

South Korea's dog meat ban will likely be remembered as a major turning point for animal welfare in Asia. The values surrounding dog meat have changed with generations, and a food culture once considered normal is institutionally coming to an end. This change is also a symbolic event for society to reassess its relationship with animals.

However, amid this historic transition, hundreds of thousands of dogs have disappeared from statistics. Were they saved, sold, killed, or eaten? The answer has not been sufficiently recorded.

The collars left behind at the abandoned facility in Pyeongtaek are not merely forgotten items. They are traces of lives that the law did not reach. To truly call the end of the dog meat industry a "progress," it is necessary to continue questioning the whereabouts of the disappeared dogs, not just celebrate the achievement of the ban.

We must not easily call the empty cages a salvation.

Source URL

France-Antilles / AFP distribution. Reporting on the issue of many dogs going missing before the dog meat ban in South Korea, the facility in Pyeongtaek, government estimates, and testimonies from animal protection groups and former farmers.
https://www.martinique.franceantilles.fr/actualite/international/en-coree-du-sud-des-milliers-de-chiens-disparus-avant-linterdiction-de-leur-viande-1084294.php

Announcement by South Korea's Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA). Official information on the closure of about 82% of dog meat breeding farms as of May 2026, full enforcement on February 7, 2027, and strengthened inspections to prevent illegal breeding.
https://www.mafra.go.kr/english/756/subview.do?enc=Zm5jdDF8QEB8JTJGYmJzJTJGZW5nbGlzaCUyRjI1JTJGNTc3OTI4JTJGYXJ0Y2xWaWV3LmRvJTNG

Associated Press. Reporting on the enactment of the dog meat production and sale ban by the South Korean National Assembly, penalties starting in 2027, opposition from farmers, public opinion, and issues surrounding support measures.
https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-dog-meat-ban-1d813e734739c3938f28220b8d949648

Humane World for Animals. Information on support for closing dog meat farms in South Korea, protection activities, rescue achievements of about 2,800 dogs, and campaigns towards the abolition of the dog meat industry.
https://www.humaneworld.org/en/campaign/closing-south-koreas-dog-meat-farms

Humane World for Animals blog. Explanation of the background leading to the dog meat ban in South Korea, the influence of younger generations and pet culture, the impact of social media, and changes in societal values.
https://www.humaneworld.org/en/blog/how-south-korea-achieved-dog-meat-ban

Reddit / r/worldnews. Used to confirm user reactions regarding the whereabouts of dogs before the dog meat ban, lack of government guidelines, and protection groups or adoption destinations.
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1qlalai/fate_of_half_million_dogs_unclear_as_dog_meat_ban/

Reddit / r/BeAmazed. Used to confirm user reactions to posts viewing the closure of the dog meat industry as "dogs being saved," with suggestions that it may actually be about stopping breeding or disposing of stock.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/1rwdv9v/south_korea_has_decided_to_close_the_dog_meat/