[Tublecane]

“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?

“As far as rights, restrictions on animals have been around for a long time”

So? There have been restrictions on guns for a long time, too Eries that mean fake cops can storm into your house and seize then, lie to you about giving them back later, then melt them down behind your back?

This to me us a property rights issue.

[Dr. Sivana]

“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.