Breeding ban system for animal abusers under consideration

The hamster that was abused by its owner [KOREAN ANIMAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION]

 
In Korea, the legal protection to own animals, even for owners convicted of repeated offenses toward animals, exists. Now, that may finally be changing.
 
The issue was brought to light after a man in Ulsan, who had been repeatedly abusing small animals such as hamsters since March 2025, openly posted his actions online and even stated that he would do the same to different animals in the future.
 

Related Article

• Bullfighting organizers face investigation over alleged animal abuse, drugging

• Busan police investigate cat's death for possible animal abuse

• Gov't expands mandatory CCTV surveillence to curb animal abuse

• Dog rescue livestreamers face allegations of animal abuse, donation misuse

• Gyeonggi to combat animal abuse after grisly cases

 
His actions were grotesque and brutal: sucking hamsters up with a vacuum cleaner, cramming them into a cramped cage, or breeding multiple hamsters together, even though they are known to attack or eat one another when stressed.
 
Even after being booked by police on suspicion of violating the Animal Protection Act, the man continued to threaten further abuse by posting messages such as, “This time I’ll raise a rabbit.” Under current law, however, there is no way to forcibly bar him from keeping pets.
 
The government is finally taking action after calls grew from society at large for a system that would ban animal abusers from keeping animals. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is working on a system that would prohibit those found guilty of serious abuse — such as killing or injuring an animal — from owning, keeping, caring for or managing animals for one to five years.  
 
“Attempts to legislate such a system have been made for more than a decade, but failed to clear the National Assembly due to concerns about excessive restrictions on people's basic rights,” a ministry official said. “Now that public awareness of animal welfare has improved and social interest has grown, we are discussing ways to improve the system with relevant ministries, including the Ministry of Justice.”
 
Experts point to “slap-on-the-wrist” penalties as one reason animal abuse is repeated year after year.
 

A man is alleged to have applied balm not suitable for pets all over a dog while on a Seoul subway train on Aug. 1. [SCREEN CAPTURE]

 
According to the National Assembly Research Service and the Ministry of Justice, 859 cases involving animal abuse and other violations of the Animal Protection Act were filed with prosecutors from January to November 2025. Of those, prosecutors determined 393 cases to warrant guilty findings, and there were zero indictments with suspects held in detention.  
 
The National Police Agency puts the recidivism rate for animal abuse at around 10 percent, but critics say it is hard to overlook the problem given the likelihood of countless cases that investigative authorities fail to detect.
 
The biggest sticking point in introducing a ban system is how to address concerns over excessive restrictions on basic rights. Animals are legally classified as “things,” meaning animal abuse can be viewed, at its core, as damaging property, under the Civil Act. From that perspective, some argue it would be excessive to restrict ownership simply because someone might damage their own property.
 
If someone breeds or sells animals for a living, the ban could also be interpreted as infringing on the freedom to choose one’s occupation. 
 

A dog severely injured after two Marine officials shot multiple rounds of BB guns, left, had one of its eyes taken out as a result. [SCREEN CAPTURE]

 
Still, the National Assembly Research Service noted in a report that such concerns reflect an overly one-sided view.
 
"Restrictions on basic rights to prevent repeated animal abuse can be justified as serving not only the animals themselves but also the broader community," said the research service. "A breeding ban system could be positively considered on that basis." 
 
Costs must also be considered. If an abuser’s right to keep animals is revoked, the state or local governments — which would take over ownership — would also bear the cost of caring for the animals left behind. Over the past five years, animal protection centers have rescued an average of about 116,000 abandoned and lost animals a year, but funding for rescue and care has covered only around 50,000 animals.
 
“The current law makes it difficult to prevent repeat abuse because even when abused animals are taken, they can be returned to the abuser if the abuser pays the cost of care,” said Noh Ju-hee, an activist at the Korean Animal Welfare Association. “The government’s push, listed as a national policy task, to introduce a system that bans rearing animals for abusers is urgent.”


This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
BY KIM KYUNG-HEE [kim.minyoung5@joongang.co.kr]