Tattooing your pet - Cruel?
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Tattooing your pet - Cruel?

  1. #1
    Posting Addict smsturner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hamilton, NY
    Posts
    5,863

    Default Tattooing your pet - Cruel?

    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?
    Susan, dh Tom, dd Megan, ds Marcus, ds #2 coming Feb, 2014

    Lilypie Maternity tickers

    I never knew until that moment how badly it could hurt to lose something you never really had. - Missed Miscarriage at 10 weeks - 3/26

  2. #2
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,291

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Posting Addict smsturner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hamilton, NY
    Posts
    5,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    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.
    That's my only thought too. He made it to be cool-looking... so that's a little overboard. But branding and cropping tails seems so much worse. And how is it any different from surgically putting a microchip in (that could be removed). A tattoo really is more permanent...

    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!
    Susan, dh Tom, dd Megan, ds Marcus, ds #2 coming Feb, 2014

    Lilypie Maternity tickers

    I never knew until that moment how badly it could hurt to lose something you never really had. - Missed Miscarriage at 10 weeks - 3/26

  4. #4
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,222

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,560

    Default

    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.
    The number of U.S. states in which a person can marry the person they love regardless of gender: 30 and counting!

  6. #6
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    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.
    indigoV51 likes this.

  7. #7
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,688

    Default

    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

  8. #8
    Prolific Poster ftmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    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.
    ClairesMommy likes this.
    Kyla
    Mom to Arianna (5), Conner (3) and Trent (my baby)

  9. #9
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ftmom View Post
    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.
    well i think thats what makes this a little more unique, that it wasn't just an identification tattoo. I mean, sure he says it can be used for identification but i don't think that was its only intent. I mean, in theory he could have given the dog a full belly tattoo and said it could be used for identification.

    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

  10. #10
    Posting Addict SID081108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    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.
    The difference is that a person gives their own permission to have themselves tattooed...the dog did not have that option. If the guy shot heroin would it be okay that he gave his dog heroin, since he wasn't doing anything to the dog that he wouldn't do to himself? I doubt it. So I don't agree with your reasoning, but with that said...I can't seem to get myself too worked up about this, either. The dog was sedated, and whether or not the guy did it for "identification" purposes, or he just thought it would be cool to tattoo his dog...I just don't see it as that big of a deal.
    Last edited by SID081108; 04-03-2013 at 04:10 PM.
    CARRIE and DH 7/14/07
    SOPHIA 8/11/08
    LAYLA 3/24/11


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions