Dog Eating - An Igorot Culture?
By Bing Dawang

The article came out just in time for the World Animal Day, which coincides with the Feast of St. Francis de Assisi, the Patron Saint of Animals.

As an Igorot myself (and full blooded at that), I take offense to the claims in the article that dog eating is part of my culture.

The article quoted a certain Isikias Isican (who is also said to be the curator of the St. Louis University museum) as saying that there is a clear cultural basis for butchering of dogs, as they were “butchered by Igorot tribes before going out to war, or to cure certain affliction."

To make matters worse, the article made a generalization that dog meat is a regular part of the Igorot diet (again quoting Isican). Isican also traced the dog butchering for some 100 years, saying that in 1904, the American colonizers brought with them a few Igorot men and women whom they exhibited in St. Louis Missouri as heathen pagans, in which they were made to butcher a dog. Isican said that this proves that dog butchering had been part of the Igorot way of life.

Another disturbing part of the article is when a lawyer (who had been the defense counsel of dog meat traders) who is now a part of the Benguet Prosecutors Office, Atty. Hanzen Binay-an also allegedly questioned the wisdom of the Animal Welfare Act or the R.A. 8485, even saying that the law was lobbied by the British government and citizens. He was also quoted questioning why the British does not respect the independent cultural practice of the Igorots.

First, as an lgorot, I vehemently do not accept dog eating as my culture. I was not raised to eat dogs, and dog meat is not a regular part of my diet nor has it ever been. I find it insulting that we Igorots are branded as dog-eaters, not only in the Philippines but in other countries. It is a shame, and considering that Igorots are Filipinos, dog eating is a national shame.While it is true that in the olden days, Igorot tribes butchered their dog before going to war, this is because it is the belief of the then pagan Igorots that the spirit of the sacrificial dog will guard them during the war so that they can emerge victorious. In times of tragedy, the family dog was also sacrificed to appease the spirits (anito) and for the spirit of the dog to guard the spirit of the living members of the family. There is a spiritual significance to it. If you notice, the dog sacrifice always connote bad luck, tragedy, or death. So that when a family butchers a dog (and the dog has to be the family dog and not just any dog bought from nowhere), that family is not into a feast, rather they are either mourning, in extreme pain, or they are involved in an activity that has something to do with death and bad luck. Definitely, dogs then were not butchered as drinkers’ fare, or as a daily or regular part of their diet. If we are to strictly follow the spiritual essence of butchering a dog, definitely, an Igorot family would rather not have a reason for sacrificing their dog.

This is also the reason why dog sacrifice for religious purposes is allowed under the Animal Welfare Act. However, it is also stated under the law that dogs killed for this purpose should be recorded and reported. Five years since the law was passed, and the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) has yet to receive a report from the Igorot elders on how many dogs were sacrificed for religious purposes.

Even if we follow (although not admitting) the dog eaters’ argument that dog eating is part of the Igorot culture, still, it is one of those supposed part of  the culture that needs to be changed. Headhunting was part of the Igorot culture and way of life a hundred years ago. However, that had to be scrapped because that is savagery; and that is no longer allowed by our laws, that is murder.

Moreover, as an Igorot myself, I know for a fact that years ago, Igorots do not have, as part of their language the manang or manong, or kuya and ate, as a sign of respect for older members of the familty. To date, it is still quite common in an Igorot family, for a younger member of the family to call his/her older siblings by their first names. However at the passing of times, When Igorots were exposed to other cultures, they started adopting the use of manong, manang, ate and kuya. So that at present day, you will see more and more families using those terms as a sign of respect. In our family, it is my older brother, Donald, who taught us to use manong and manang. Our neighbors were laughing at us then, but eventually, they followed suit.

That is adaptation. That is cultural evolution. We discard the bad ones, and we adapt the good ones from other cultures. Definitely, I would not want to remain savage and disrespectful.

So that while the dog meat trade may have been allowed before the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 was passed, it is definitely unlawful these days. Dog traders and those patronizing the stalls selling dog meat and restaurants serving dog meat, are not just violating the Animal Welfare Act, but may also be violating (among others) the anti-fencing law as well. This is because most ofthe dogs being butchered here in Baguio come from Laguna and Batangas. You might be surprised that there are dog owners in Laguna who are complaining about their lost dogs. More often, the dog you are eating are either stolen, lost dogs or simply homeless street dogs.

I can also discuss the unhealthy benefits of eating dog meat, however, knowing the dog eaters’ line of thinking and reasoning, I’d rather not.

What is clear is that the dog meat trade and dog meat eating (just for the heck of it) is a crime.

I’d like to address this to dog eaters: I don’t care what you eat. You can eat anything you want. However, if I see you trading and butchering dogs for their meat. I will not hesitate to bring you to court. 

Lastly, as to the comment of that (presumably) dog-eater-lawyer and now a public prosecutor, that R.A. 8485 was passsed through the lobbying effort of the British government and citizens, I’d like to say that he is  misinformed. He should have conducted more research before opening his mouth. While it is true that a UK-based group helped in the lobbying, Philippine groups did most of the work, such as the Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) headed by Nita Hontiveros-Lichauco (a through and through animal lover and Filipino as well and the Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA), the oldest animal welfare organization in the Philippines organized on December 13, 1904), and now being headed by Mr. Edgardo Aldaba. So you see, just one UK-based group joined the lobbying, and most of the effort was done by Filipinos.

Dogs are man’s best friend. They are not dumb and stupid. They have feelings too. They are loyal to their masters. We have been hearing and reading stories about how a dog saved his/her master locally. We have one hero (we believe there are more of them but are not recorded), by the name of  Dagul. Dagul, an askal, saved his master Wilmar Castillo when their house was devoured by an avalanche of mud last May (typhoon Chedeng). If not for Dagul, we wouldn’t know what could have happened to Wilmar. So, will you still eat your dog?

The author Ms. Dawang is the Editor of the Junction Newspaper and founding director of Linis Gobyerno.

The articles "Dog eating an Igorot culture?" and "Dog eating and my culture" were published first in The Junction Newspaper on October 11, 2003 issue and later on the Animal People News Magazines on November 2003