Tattooing your pet - Cruel?

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
smsturner's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 05/11/09
Posts: 1303
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?

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

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.

smsturner's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 05/11/09
Posts: 1303

"KimPossible" wrote:

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!

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 5 days ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

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.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

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.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

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.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

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.

ftmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

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.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

"ftmom" wrote:

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. Smile

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

SID081108's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: 06/03/09
Posts: 1348

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

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.

ftmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

I am not saying that 'anything goes', but we do a lot of things to animals without asking their permission......like everything. When we stop cutting chickens beaks off, docking tails and ears and a million other things.....I MIGHT be able to drum up a little bit of concern about this.

At this point, I see a guy who likes his dog so much he wants to do something cool for him. He gives him a good home and knocked him out for the actual tatooing. Not sure what is so horrible about this.

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

I actually think it's creepy and weird and a little wrong. Not enough to really argue it through with anyone, or hold up signs, or sign petitions, but I don't really think that's okay.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"ftmom" wrote:

I am not saying that 'anything goes', but we do a lot of things to animals without asking their permission......like everything. When we stop cutting chickens beaks off, docking tails and ears and a million other things.....I MIGHT be able to drum up a little bit of concern about this.

And all of those things should stop, too. We have no right to torture animals.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

I'm with Kyla all the way on this. I've never owned a pet without an ear tattoo. Tattooing and microchipping are standard identification practices, at least every place in Canada I've ever lived. Tattoos are done at the same time as spaying/neutering. Are we supposed to stop spaying and neutering because we don't have the animals 'consent'? Sorry, but that makes me laugh a bit. Wildlife is tagged all the time. Should we start asking the bears and cougars before they're darted if they mind having a tracking beacon inserted? How about endangered pandas that have their sperm collected in the effort to ward off their extinction from the planet? Humans do lots of things to animals that hurt, but many are in order to protect not only the animal population but the human population as well.