Replies

“I don’t like the anthropomorphizing of animals”

Who’s doing that? Okay, so it’s a stretch to say the dog was a member of the family. But since when can we only be upset when humans die?

From he linked article:

Fudge's family wants to honor their puppy's memory and fight for others like her.

Fudge’s toys remain scattered around the house, a memory, a reminder of a life tragically and arbitrarily cut short,

save the lives of others who may be destroyed by the same legislation which ended her beautiful life.

We don't use this type of phrasing for a seized gun or even a cut down tree or a crushed car.

Now, dogs are definitely higher on the scale than these things, but they still aren't people. There are all sorts of legitimate restrictions on property ownership (I can store my small pox samples in a densely populated city). As far as I can tell, these laws are based on real injuries and deaths suffered at the paws of these types of dogs over a long period of time., not primarily out of the nanny-statism that we so often rightly associate with the UK.

Breeding of a handful of dog types has been illegal for over 20 years. So the original purchase or transfer was the real problem, as the dog was only five months old. NOW, if the owners want to say that their property (the dog) doesn't meet the specifications of the law, and that therefore their property was illegally seized, I might join them on that. They are not. They are arguing against the legitimacy of the law itself.

Breeding of a handful of dog types has been illegal for over 20 years. So the original purchase or transfer was the real problem, as the dog was only five months old.

Why do I get the feeling that the people who bought this dog did so just to have a little puppy face to go with their Facebook money-raising anti-BSL enterprise.

Fudge is probably doing just fine in some other city and if not then shame on these dogowners for bringing him to a place where he would be at risk.