Anyone with a dog knows that they treasure their pooch like nothing else on this earth. After all, they're man's best friend! And that's why you've likely seen a number of famous celebrity dogs online. Several owners have built a cult of pawsonality based on their pup's looks or something special about them.
And Chutou is no exception. Chutou was a beautiful border collie owned by a Chinese travel influencer named Guo. The duo had gained a loyal following on the Chinese short-form video platform Douyin, which is similar to TikTok.
But, according to the New York Post, the celebrity dog was stolen from his parents' Shanqui farm on May 11. And despite panicked efforts from his family and Guo himself, the dog was never seen again.
Authorities were alerted, and the family offered rewards out, but nothing seemed to be happening. It took Guo himself to track the suspects down.
Videos by Wide Open Country
The Thieving Suspects Revealed They Thought the Celebrity Dog Was a Stray
The suspects, who lived in a neighboring village, claimed they had no idea the dog was owned by anyone. They thought it was just a stray.
So they sold Chutou to a dog trader for approximately $26.50. He was then tragically butchered and sold to be eaten at a dog restaurant. One of the alleged thieves even told Guo, "The dog is dead, stop making a fuss. I did not break the law." The restaurant was similarly callous.
Upon Guo trying to get even a small part of Chutou to remember him by, he was told that "the hair was thrown in the rubbish long ago." And now, Guo is taking the alleged thieves to court. Lawyers have explained that Chutou was worth at least $10,000, and he wants compensation for the death of the dog.
The reason why Guo has to go down the legal route of financial compensation is due to Chinese law surrounding pets.
Chinese law, like laws in many countries, dictates that pets are treated as property rather than something with emotional attachment to them. There is also no nationwide ban on eating dog meat in China, meaning that there are no grounds to sue based on that alone.
