Man tattoos Pit Bull: Outrage from animal lovers as Ernesto Rodriguez gives DOG a tattoo | Mail Online
A North Carolina man has created huge controversy among animal lovers after tattooing Duchess - his own pet dog.
Ernesto Rodriguez, who is a tattoo artist and Army veteran, inked the 5-month-old purebred American Pit Bull on the underbelly at his basement parlor in Pinnacle, NC, on Wednesday.
When Rodriguez posted pictures of the emblem on Facebook he received fierce criticism from all over the U.S. But the man claims the tattoo can be used for identification and compares it to branding farm animals.
Rodriguez told WXII12 that he didn't see a problem with his actions.
'What do they do when they brand animals and tattoo horses on their ear and brand their cow? You?re not abusing them. You?re just protecting them so they don?t get lost,' Rodriguez said.
What do you think? Animal cruelty? Should it be illegal?
Should it be illegal while things like cropping ears and tails are still legal? Worse or better than those?
Interesting. At first i was like "Why on earth would anyone do that..it seems unecessary and totally frivolous and for that reason i object" but then i read the bit and saw he said that it would help identify the pet if they were to get lost. Which is true, but at the same time they have other ways to do things like that now....so i'm not sure what the need to tattoo is. Yet again, we still use some painful techniques to identify livestock, just like the individual mentioned....and he said his dog was anesthetized so i don't know.
The tattoo is more elaborate than it needs to be for identification purposes...so part of it was frivolous and to me that feels kind of wrong.
Overall though? I wouldn't get my panties in a twist about it. If he is a loving owner overall...then i would just disagree with the choice. Certainly not worth outrage to me.
The dogs look happy and well taken care of. Of all the dog owners to be bothering, I'd put him near the bottom. Go find the ones that starve and beat their puppies first please!
I totally get the concern and why it warranted review. I would think not reviewing what he did would be neglectful in case there were legitimate issues of abuse.
I am going to agree with Kim though. I think this type of tattoo was a bit over the top but I see it as less harmful overall vs. ear cropping or declawing.
Inserting a microchip is akin to giving a shot, and it is NOT easily removable, so comparing that procedure to a tattoo isn't even close. I don't think any living being should be subjected to painful unnecessary procedures without their express informed consent. Cropping ears & docking tails are horrible practices, even the American Veterinary Medical Association opposes them. They are illegal in most parts of Europe & Canada, and in Australia & New Zealand, and they should be illegal here, and so should tattooing your pet. I know, he says the dog was anesthetized, but anesthetics wear off pretty quickly and tattoos can be painful & tender for a long time. At least with medical procedures at the vet, they send you home with pain pills which I doubt he obtained for his dog's tattooing.
It takes 12 pounds of grain and 2500 gallons of water to produce ONE POUND of beef.
Livestock generates 65% of all human-related nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more warming to the environment than carbon dioxide; 37% of all human-related methane, which 23 times as warming as CO2; and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.
"If you care about the planet, it's actually better to eat a salad in a Hummer than a cheeseburger in a Prius."
-- Bill Maher
These are the kind of issues where I always feel like I should care, and I try to summon up some great well of emotion.....and, well, I get nothin. it appears he really loves his dog and his dog lives a nice life. Millions of animals live way worse lives and then you and I eat them and nobody cares.....so yeah, I'm outrageless on this one.
I think its kind of a silly thing to worry about. The guy didn't do anything to his dog that he wasn't willing to go through himself since he has much more extensive tattoos than what he put on the dog. I don't see how it is ok to do to a person but not a dog.
Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013
I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson
Am I the only person who had a dog with an ear tattoo? It was simpler than this, just a number inside the ear for identification purposes, but still, this isn't a new thing.
Mom to Arianna (5), Conner (3) and Trent (my baby)
I wonder if the amount of outrage would increase if the tattoo was larger and more elaborate or covered more of his body. I wonder if there is a point where you could get the masses behind the case and say "yeah thats really unacceptable and worth the outrage"...i wonder what point that is, and i wonder if that point is rather arbitrary.
Just my random thoughts on the issue
...slow debate board day LOL
Last edited by SID081108; 04-03-2013 at 04:10 PM.
CARRIE and DH 7/14/07