You quoted me and claimed I'd support it.I missed the point?
They craigslisted the dog, and even lied about its health, and sold it at a discount rate, to cover a city dog tax, as far as I can tell. If they could not afford to take care of a dog is one thing. If they owed an unpaid bill to the city, but could actually afford to care for the pet, that's different. So it's a rule violation and an economic issue and nothing to do with the welfare of the animal.
I clearly said that all those costs are important to be able to cover BUT that its not reasonable to take away the dog because of one aspect that was not covered temporary for a couple of times.
Instead its important to support such families and help them to cover the costs temporary,
If its long term then one should question if the family is really capable to support and maintain a dog on long term (yet a system needs to help them.
Pugs are incredible unhealthy breeds. If you buy a pug you know it will have health issues. Be it nose, heart, lungs, eyes or any other organ. That breed is incredibly prone to health issues. It could have been that the dog was without symptoms before (if not the family didnt take him to the vet which would indicate that they cant take care of the dog), the stress of the move put him under so much pressure that he ended up developing health problems.
Last edited: