Around December 20, 2025, Weibo and short-video platforms circulated footage of an abnormal express parcel in Anhui. Public text described a ZTO parcel at an Anqing delivery point: a damaged woven sack was bleeding and showed what appeared to be a dog paw. A Litchi News video image, however, marked the location as Liu'an, Anhui on December 21 and showed an outlet response saying it was “a lamb leg” and “not live-animal transport.” Because the exposed part appeared inconsistent with a sheep hoof, many users criticized the explanation as “calling a dog a sheep.” No final public regulatory or judicial conclusion was found at filing time.

The bleeding parcel and the exposed paw

Public circulation text said that around December 20, 2025, an abnormal ZTO parcel at an Anqing express point drew attention: a torn woven sack exposed what appeared to be a dog paw, and blood had seeped through the package. The Weibo video frame from Litchi News shows a sack-like parcel on the ground with blood spots nearby, overlaid with the claim that the outlet denied a pet-dog delivery death and called it a lamb leg.

The source trail includes conflicting wording: Anqing and Liu'an, ZTO and another outlet name. This archive does not state sender location, discovery location or carrier as final facts. What can be recorded is the public dispute around a bleeding parcel, an exposed suspected canine limb, and a delivery outlet's “lamb leg” response.

The “lamb leg” response and the criticism

The response shown in the Litchi News video said the outlet had verified the parcel as a lamb leg, not a pet dog or live animal transport. But the preserved public text on Sina argued that the exposed part had a four-toed shape unlike a split sheep hoof, intensifying public doubt.

Many users summarized that doubt with the phrase “calling a dog a sheep.” This archive records the phrase because it captures the public reaction to the conflict between what the image seemed to show and the outlet's explanation.

A logistics chain should not swallow life or evidence

Whether the package is ultimately confirmed as a dog's remains, a suspected canine animal product, or another animal-derived item, a bleeding, damaged parcel with an exposed limb should not move casually through ordinary express channels. Inspection duties, prohibited-item screening, animal-product quarantine and abnormal-parcel handling are all part of the responsibility of logistics companies and regulators.

If the image did involve a dog or canine remains, the ethical issue is sharper: a companion animal should not be cut up, wrapped, and pushed into logistics as an unwanted parcel. Even after death, a life should not be visible only through blood and an exposed paw.

Why this case is recorded

The available material does not support writing this simply as a live-puppy transport death. It more carefully points to a suspected canine body part or animal product entering an express chain, and to the dispute caused by an outlet's denial.

This archive records the case to preserve the detail that sparked the outrage: a suspected dog paw protruding from a bloodied package, while the response tried to call it something else. Compassion for the animal, scrutiny of the logistics chain and criticism of that explanation all belong in the record.

Timeline

• Around 2025-12-20: Weibo and short-video platforms circulated footage of an abnormal Anhui express parcel; public text said an Anqing ZTO parcel exposed a suspected dog paw and blood.
• 2025-12-21: The Litchi News frame marked the location as Liu'an, Anhui and showed an outlet response saying the parcel was a lamb leg and not live-animal transport.
• Later circulation: Users questioned the shape of the exposed part, the blood, inspection duties and the “lamb leg” response, with some calling it “calling a dog a sheep.”
• At filing: No final public regulatory or judicial conclusion was found on the parcel's content, route or responsible party.

Public Sources

This article is based on a public Weibo page, the Litchi News video frame, and circulating text preserved by Weibo/Sina. Because public circulation differs on location and carrier, the article records those differences rather than choosing one as final fact. For the parcel contents, it uses wording such as “suspected dog paw,” “suspected canine limb,” and “the outlet said lamb leg.”

• Weibo: Mammoth News repost of Litchi News video, including the outlet's “lamb leg / no live animal transport” response
• Sina News mirror page preserving the circulating text about the bleeding parcel and exposed dog paw