Solomonic dog disaster dilemma (or is it a tornadic canine conundrum?)
I'm not an animal person, but this topic/article is really interesting. It reminds me of "the abortion debate" in that one's (often unspoken) starting assumptions determine the conclusion. But this actually seems more complicated...
Is a dog (strictly) "property" or a living being that has rights of some sort/extent? To what extent are the dog's preferences relevant? To what extent are we aiming for "what's best for the dog" (independent of what either "owner" thinks)-- and then the means might even justify the ends? To what extent do we want the govt to (try to) deliver justice-- and to what extent do we want God or karma to sort things out? And so on.
Maybe we can invoke Solomon here: just threaten to cut the dog in half. (Given the moral character of the parties involved, this strategy may or may not retain the necessary element of surprise-- to be successful.)