Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41375498›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

Animal Welfare and Policy Reforms for Korean Traditional Bull Fighting: Harmonizing Traditions with Animal Rights.

Gina S Rhee, Rahyeon Ahn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Gina S RheeThe Catholic College, The Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon 14662, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0001-2176-3651
Rahyeon AhnDepartment of Small Animal Surgery and Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College Health Sciences Centre, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.ORCID 0009-0001-3543-3581

Funding

The Catholic University of Korea 2023 Research Fund of The Catholic University of Korea
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examines the welfare conditions, legal ambiguities, and economic inefficiencies inherent in Korea's traditional bullfighting practices. The study analyzes field data collected during 2025 (February-June), covering 131 contests across six venues, collected by the Animal Liberation Wave (ALW); the results reveal pervasive welfare violations, as evidenced by high avoidance (41.2%) and injury (62.3%) rates among bulls, alongside notable physiological and behavioral stress markers. From a legal perspective, the Animal Protection Act of Korea displays a core inconsistency: it prohibits cruelty to animals yet exempts bullfighting on cultural grounds, thereby compromising legal coherence and undermining welfare standards. Public opinion surveys further demonstrate declining societal support, particularly among younger and urban populations. Comparative cases from Spain, Mexico, and the European Union illustrate alternatives and possible reforms that may preserve cultural identity while eliminating harm against animals. Accordingly, this study proposes a phased policy framework comprising immediate welfare oversight, gradual redirection of subsidies toward humane cultural programs, and legislative amendment to remove the exemption clause. Ultimately, this study contends that harmonizing Korea's cultural heritage with international welfare norms is both ethically significant and legally necessary, offering a model for culturally sensitive reform in the global context.

Indexed as

animal welfarebehavioral assessmentbullfightingcultural heritageethical transitionKoreapolicy reformpublic subsidytraditional practices

Identifiers

PMID41375498
PMCPMC12690985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.