[Seoul, Now] Is Spending Tax Money on Dogs and Cats a Waste?

The revised Animal Protection Act has been in effect since last year. It was the first change in 31 years since the law was enacted in 1991. The law, created when the per capita national income was around $7,000, had been held onto unchanged until the era of $30,000 income. During that time, the public’s awareness of animals and the concept of animal welfare changed. The number of legal provisions, which was about 50, has doubled.

About 20 years ago, one district office official was in charge of pet-related affairs. Now, most district offices have teams of 5 to 6 people dedicated to pet-related work. The workload has increased that much. Among animal-related complaints to government offices, noise complaints from dogs and cats are the most common. Complaints about cleaning up feces are not far behind. There are also many reports related to dog bites and animal abandonment. Requests to install cat feeding stations and calls to remove feeding stations in front of one’s house come in simultaneously. If there is no dog playground, calls say there isn’t one; if one is made, calls question why it was built there.

Pet-related work is challenging because it has supporters on one side and opponents on the other, making it difficult to even break even despite good efforts. It is hard to receive praise or achieve harmony. Local governments create and implement animal welfare action plans every year. When the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs issues guidelines, metropolitan and local governments execute plans suited to their respective situations.

As the population of pet owners steadily increases, programs to prevent related social problems and improve animal welfare are also expanding. This year, Seoul City increased the number of participants in its Pet Citizen School education by 1.5 times compared to last year. Behavioral correction education for pets and their owners, addressing issues such as excessive barking, high aggression, and separation anxiety, is very popular. There are also experiential education programs such as dog fitness, making nutritious snacks, and aroma massage.

District offices operate educational programs like puppy socialization training and dog walking training. They organize pet culture festivals and compete to create dog playgrounds and parks. For vulnerable groups, they provide support for basic health checkups, vaccinations, disease treatment costs, and neutering surgery fees for pets. During holidays, pet care shelters and pet hotels are also operated. The usage fees are close to free.

The expansion and support of these programs receive high approval from the perspective of animal protection and welfare. Another reason is that solving social problems caused by the increasing number of pets is also necessary for non-pet owners. Healthy pets have a positive emotional impact through interactions with people. In households with pets, dogs and cats are no longer just animals but family members. More broadly, it is seen as an issue of coexistence between humans and animals.

There are also unfavorable views. Critics question whether the priority of using taxes is appropriate when there are still people in welfare blind spots whose survival is threatened. There is discomfort with pets living in doghouses made of imported wood costing millions of won, wearing Gucci pet coats and Prada raincoats for dogs, and using Herm?s pet bowls, while even pet owners receive benefits funded by taxes.

One reason why the idea of a pet ownership tax or taxation on pets arises frequently is based on the principle of beneficiary pays. As local governments’ involvement in pet support increases, costs steadily rise. Efforts to build social consensus are necessary to reduce conflicts.