So, here we go...
Article says that big dogs are banned, with only a 10 day warning to relocate the animals issued. 54,000 dogs destroyed in Yunnan. It is implied that larger dogs are banned regardless of licensing, but it is not directly said. Also reference to police by the 100's, blockades, search and seizures, etc., all refuting the idea that China could "care less" about enforcing dog policies. "
Grace Ge Gabriel, the Asia director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, said her group agreed that dog owners should vaccinate their pets and register them. But she said BeijingÂ’s current ban against big dogs was wrongheaded because it was based on the premise that they are more vicious.":
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/world/asia/14dogs.html
Same article in Chinese publication:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-11/14/content_733050.htm
How about from the Shanghai Daily? That doesn't sound like American "biased" media to me. It attempts to create a positive, or at least and unbaised spin. But yet again it states that "large breeds" and "aggressive dogs" (whatever that means) are being banned, along with crackdowns on many things, with "breeds" among them:
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/art/2006/11/14/297091/Police_firm_on_dog_control_measures.htm
Or, how about from China.org, translated from another Chinese paper? Here it specifically states that dogs over 35cm are on the banned list, and that licensing a dog on the banned list does not make it legal. It also makes reference to many pet hospitals and so forth, thus flying in the face of the idea that "there are barely any vets in Beijing."
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2006/Sep/181459.htm
This article also talks of dogs being seized from homes, and any dog over 35cm (14") being confiscated. Talks about dogs being beaten and killed in the streets. Also mentions that many groups have been suggesting the same things of licensing and vaccination requirements rather then current policies. Gives contact information for those who would like to help the cause to fight against this attrocity.:
http://network.bestfriends.org/international/news/9191.html
From "The Shanghiist." Mentions many things already mentioned, specifically that the hope for the Chinese government is to erradicate all medium/large dogs. References a middle school girl who jumped out a 15 story window when the government came to take her dog.
http://www.shanghaiist.com/archives/2006/11/07/dog_days_in_chi.php
Also from the Shanghi Daily. "
Police say the "one-dog policy" is aimed at reducing the number of dog bites to lower rabies risk. Dangerous dogs or dogs taller than 35cm, such as mastiffs, Dobermans, Saint Bernards and Great Danes, are banned." And I loooove this quote: "
China only set limits on the number of dogs a family can have, the size of the dogs and the species. It will never ban dog-raising," he (Bao Suixian of Public Security Management Bureau
) said. Article also talks of instituting manditory digital dog chips. So I guess the left behind series has come true for these animals in China. :
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/art/2006/11/15/297167/Dog_control___039_strict__but_civilized__039_.htm
So...
It looks like there is a whole heck of a lot of evidence, from both American and Chinese publications, that support the original article that initially started this thread. After going through PAGES of searches, I didn't find 1 ioda of evidence to support what your family told you over the phone, Xue Sheng. So, it would appear that your contacts don't know the extent of this issue. It is about the same as what I ran into with Ontario's dog breed ban; most people who's lives weren't effected didn't know the extent of the problem; most understandably don't want to believe what is true. I think that they'd better do a little research to find out what attrocities their own government is up too.
But, so far all the evidence I have seen unfortunatily points to the facts that the Chinese government is violating civil liberties and committing mass attrocities against another conscious mammel; dogs.
There is no excuse for this.
Last thing here: it was referenced more then once that people mentioned that they would physically fight for their animals if they were attempted to be siezed. I say go for it. I think they should stand up and fight for their rights with all that they have...
Paul