Man tattoos his dog: Animal abuse or a pretty pooch?

A North Carolina tattoo artist apparently caused outrage amongst some animal lovers on Facebook when he posted a picture of his dog, which he had shaved and tattooed.

The dog was anesthetized during the procedure, and no criminal charges were brought to date.

The dog's owner, Mr Ernesto Rodriguez, claims that the procedure is similar (perhaps even more humane) to branding horses and other livestock.

It seems like a complex issue, considering factory farmed chickens who have their beaks burnt off, and other procedures inflicted on animals.
Especially with pedigree dogs some are bred into deformity and ill-health, and their tails or ears may be trimmed.
Is this really any worse than standardizing breeds through euthanasia, in-breeding (which leads to deformities and illnesses), or clipping practiced by the high society kennel clubs?
I think breeding dogs like the German Shepard to specifications where their hind-legs collapse (more "frog" than "dog") is also animal abuse, although it's less instantly visible and done by supposedly "classy" people.

On the other hand, according to the picture, the dog has flesh wounds, possibly from being shaven.
Why put an animal through all this trauma for an unnecessary procedure?

I'd also hope the dog doesn't have to be continually shaven to see the tattoos.

www.dogheirs.com...

reply to post by halfoldman


Yeah this kind of pet "modification" is just disturbing to me. It reminds me so much of this Monty Python sketch:


It's just wrong. I'm not so excited about the treatment of animals in the meat-processing industry either, but we're talking about a pet here. However you want to look at it, I see it as abuse and neglect--objectification of a dependent, living creature--pure and simple!

I don't think people should be allowed to tattoo infants either, but they still do

It's a lot larger than the usual identification tattoos, but other than that, the idea is the same.
They tattoo numbers on dogs for ID, it's safer than chipping them. If the dog was under anesthesia I would assume a veterinarian was involved as well? If not, anesthetizing the dog would have been the most dangerous aspect.

Being on the dog's belly, he wouldn't need to shave the dog anymore for it to be visible. They have very little hair there.
It did look like they caught a nipple or something in the shaver though

reply to post by halfoldman

I knew a guy once who tattoed a little domestic piglet and named it Adolph.

I thought it was hilarious and the pig lived a pretty happy life...

Snowspirit is right. My dog has an 'S' tattooed on her belly the size of a quarter after the vet spayed her. Even though what that guy did was a outrageous I don't think they'll do anything to him.

reply to post by halfoldman


I have the choice whether or not I want to get a tattoo; to date I have never gotten one; but I do have the choice.

This dog did not have a choice.

Our pet dogs and cats etc. are dependent on their owners; and want to be treated with love and respect. I really think that tattooing this dog is ridiculous and unnecessary.

reply to post by caladonea

I have the choice whether or not I want to get a tattoo; to date I have never gotten one; but I do have the choice. This dog did not have a choice.

Name a male dog that chose to be neutered. Is there any dog that would choose dog food over steak? As humans and owners/caregivers of dogs we make choices for them. Tattooing a dog so it can be identified is a choice it's owner made.

That's not a tattoo done so it can be identified. It's far bigger than need be for that.

Microchipping is far more common for identification. There's no way that tattoo (consider the aftecare for one) is safer than microchipping.

Neutering isn't done for aesthetic purposes, it's done for population control and health reasons. You can't really equate the two.

Among all of the "acceptable" forms of animal cruelty out there (you mentioned a few), this would be a lesser offense in my eyes. I also think you are correct about the stigma being related to it simply not being as "classy" as other instances of modification. Many of those modifications also serve no function other than pleasing the ego of the owner.

So, it's lame and it sucks that he did it but I think there are bigger fish to fry in the pet cruelty department. Besides, I bet a lot of those people who are shocked at this got their infant's ear pierced or circumcised. A person's ego will do horrific things to innocent creatures, human or otherwise.

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by halfoldman

 

I have the choice whether or not I want to get a tattoo; to date I have never gotten one; but I do have the choice.

This dog did not have a choice.

Our pet dogs and cats etc. are dependent on their owners; and want to be treated with love and respect. I really think that tattooing this dog is ridiculous and unnecessary.

Absolutely,as an animal lover I agree with those sentiments 100%,however,our pets have no choice in the matter when we take them to the Vets to be spayed or neutered!.seriously though,to cosmetically alter an animals appearance to satisfy human vanity is completely inexcusable.