Tattoo Artist Inks His Sedated Dog

Have to agree. But the vet should join him as well at the unemployment line for allowing it. This will certainly have the rescue people up in arms. My only question is "For what reason?". For bragging rights.

And before I get jumped on, yes I know dogs are tattooed. And I own 3 dogs and all are tattooed for identification purposes only, in case they are stolen or become lost.

Well it is not like animals are not used for practice

ucfgrad93 said:

Agreed.



Where does an ID tattoo go?

Click to expand...

My dogs are tattooed (very small) inside the ear with a number and are micro-chipped in the shoulder. They are then registered with a national database. This is done under a local by a vet when they are about 6 months old.

I think it looks kinda cool.

I don't really get why all the fuss. People are generally okay with "altering" their pets (as mentioned in the article), de-clawing them, cutting off their nards, cropping their ears, docking their tails, making them wear sweaters in the winter - but a tattoo gets people outraged? Doesn't make sense to me.

Tomorrow said:

I don't really get why all the fuss. People are generally okay with "altering" their pets (as mentioned in the article), de-clawing them, cutting off their nards, cropping their ears, docking their tails, making them wear sweaters in the winter - but a tattoo gets people outraged? Doesn't make sense to me.

Click to expand...

No to mention how we brand ranch/farm logos onto cattle.

Yes and we get decals on cars and notebooks and have ink on pages in a book... all this rational why it is okay to put an animal though unnecessary pain or discomfort speaks volumes about the owners of their pets. The tattoo and chipset is for safety/welfare of the animal jas real value and purpose. The tattoo in question here is for owner vanity at the expense of the animal.

I happen to appreciate the art of tattoo but never would consider putting an animal through that process for vanity sake. "Cool factor" is for losers who have no real self esteem in this case and require "trophies" as a false sense of empowerment. - Pathetic.

I don't think the dog will give a damn or experience pain. Tattoos don't hurt after it's done. But I agree it is stupid.

I see no reason for outrage. If the animal was sedated, I don't see it objecting to it's new tattoo.

Tomorrow said:

I think it looks kinda cool.

I don't really get why all the fuss. People are generally okay with "altering" their pets (as mentioned in the article), de-clawing them, cutting off their nards, cropping their ears, docking their tails, making them wear sweaters in the winter - but a tattoo gets people outraged? Doesn't make sense to me.

Click to expand...

De-claw - some locations it is illegal. The purpose was to stop destructive activity by the animal (cat).
Cropping ears - also a suspect activity as having no real value.
Tail amputation or docking - also no real value
Sweaters in Winter - various short hair dogs stay warm when covered. This has value.
Neutering - block reproduction (valued), in some cases health reasons.

Why you compare all of these which are relatively obvious speaks volumes about your mindset.

Tattoo for the sake of "art" is a vanity only exercise at the expense of an animal in that person's charge. I would say similar for people in colder regions who cut off the hair of their dogs for "style" leaving the dog exposed where it should have had fur to protect its skin against the weather.

ucfgrad93 said:

Not sure what to say about this other than this guy is an idiot who should lose his license to tattoo.



http://nypost.com/2014/03/05/tattoo-artist-inks-dog-while-pup-sedated-after-surgery/

Click to expand...

firedept said:

Have to agree. But the vet should join him as well at the unemployment line for allowing it. This will certainly have the rescue people up in arms. My only question is "For what reason?". For bragging rights.

And before I get jumped on, yes I know dogs are tattooed. And I own 3 dogs and all are tattooed for identification purposes only, in case they are stolen or become lost.

Click to expand...

So two people who likely do good jobs should lose their jobs, and licenses, for what? Because they did something you personally disagree with?

phrehdd said:

De-claw - some locations it is illegal. The purpose was to stop destructive activity by the animal (cat).
Cropping ears - also a suspect activity as having no real value.
Tail amputation or docking - also no real value
Sweaters in Winter - various short hair dogs stay warm when covered. This has value.
Neutering - block reproduction (valued), in some cases health reasons.

Click to expand...

But in the end, it's never a news story when these things happen. Why is the tattoo newsworthy? It's all about what the owner wants in the end, right?

Why you compare all of these which are relatively obvious speaks volumes about your mindset.

Click to expand...

Please, for my benefit, tell me what you believe these comparisons say about my mindset.

Tattoo for the sake of "art" is a vanity only exercise at the expense of an animal in that person's charge.

Click to expand...

What "expense" are you talking about? Pets are all subject to the whims of their owners anyway, regardless of whether they get tattooed. This dog wasn't mistreated or abused. So please, when you say something is a "vanity only exercise at the expense of an animal," what exactly do you mean?

phrehdd said:

De-claw - some locations it is illegal. The purpose was to stop destructive activity by the animal (cat).
Cropping ears - also a suspect activity as having no real value.
Tail amputation or docking - also no real value
Sweaters in Winter - various short hair dogs stay warm when covered. This has value.
Neutering - block reproduction (valued), in some cases health reasons.

Why you compare all of these which are relatively obvious speaks volumes about your mindset.

Tattoo for the sake of "art" is a vanity only exercise at the expense of an animal in that person's charge. I would say similar for people in colder regions who cut off the hair of their dogs for "style" leaving the dog exposed where it should have had fur to protect its skin against the weather.

Click to expand...

And what about people who dress their animals up in cute outfits, huh?? I bet you this dog is about to die of embarrassment, the cruelty!

I'll just simply say that people who manipulate animals for vanity ought to consider their motives. It speaks far more about them than the animals themselves.

I am not for dressing up dogs to the point of making an animal uncomfortable. I am also not about physical abuse of animals either.

When people say that a tattoo once done is not without physical irritation or pain to a dog, they are incorrect. Not all dog breeds have the same skin reaction to various stimuli and that makes the matter more complex.

Declawing seems logical but people should realize it is not removing nails but is the amputation of the cat's digits - akin to cutting off the last joint of one's finger. A declawed cat cannot properly defend itself outdoors or do various cat activities if outdoors that would allow it to survive (such as climbing to get away from danger).

I am not a PETA person but certainly understand the value of the notion of humanity. If one cannot be humane to animals and understand it is both a gift and responsibility to be in charge of the animals' lives (pets), they really shouldn't have them.

Sadly, some people don't get it and continue to exercise folly where pets are concerned. What a pity for the animal and those that continue the practice.

phrehdd said:

I'll just simply say that people who manipulate animals for vanity ought to consider their motives. It speaks far more about them than the animals themselves.

I am not for dressing up dogs to the point of making an animal uncomfortable. I am also not about physical abuse of animals either.

When people say that a tattoo once done is not without physical irritation or pain to a dog, they are incorrect. Not all dog breeds have the same skin reaction to various stimuli and that makes the matter more complex.

Declawing seems logical but people should realize it is not removing nails but is the amputation of the cat's digits - akin to cutting off the last joint of one's finger. A declawed cat cannot properly defend itself outdoors or do various cat activities if outdoors that would allow it to survive (such as climbing to get away from danger).

I am not a PETA person but certainly understand the value of the notion of humanity. If one cannot be humane to animals and understand it is both a gift and responsibility to be in charge of the animals' lives (pets), they really shouldn't have them.

Sadly, some people don't get it and continue to exercise folly where pets are concerned. What a pity for the animal and those that continue the practice.

Click to expand...

You say you're not "a PETA person", but you're definitely not a normal individual. The fact that you put dressing up an animal next to physical abuse is quite telling.

Michael Goff said:

So two people who likely do good jobs should lose their jobs, and licenses, for what? Because they did something you personally disagree with?

Click to expand...

YES! Explain to me please what purpose tattooing this dog served. What they did was not a good job. This is a complete disrespect for their professions and the dog. I will stand 100% behind my statement as a dog owner and dog rescuer. Wonder why he disabled his social-media accounts so quicly after bragging about doing it. Could it have been the backlash from pet owners and pet rescue societies.

Michael Goff said:

You say you're not "a PETA person", but you're definitely not a normal individual. The fact that you put dressing up an animal next to physical abuse is quite telling.

Click to expand...

Without getting too harsh - you really need to reread what I wrote. I said dressing a dog is not a good thing if it makes the dog uncomfortable. Example - long hair dog with a sweater in warm weather. I did not put covering a dog into the same "category" but pointed out that there are various things people do at the expense of the well being of a pet.

What is quite telling is your insistence on lackluster responses based upon misreading by intent or otherwise other comments that don't necessarily follow your point of view.

firedept said:

YES! Explain to me please what purpose tattooing this dog served. What they did was not a good job. This is a complete disrespect for their professions and the dog. I will stand 100% behind my statement as a dog owner and dog rescuer. Wonder why he disabled his social-media accounts so quicly after bragging about doing it. Could it have been the backlash from pet owners and pet rescue societies.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have a purpose, but it is hardly a horrible thing. Two people losing their jobs wont change anything, aside from maybe two families not having somebody bringing in money to feed them. Congratulations on wanting two families to suffer because you think this is without purpose.

phrehdd said:

Without getting too harsh - you really need to reread what I wrote. I said dressing a dog is not a good thing if it makes the dog uncomfortable. Example - long hair dog with a sweater in warm weather. I did not put covering a dog into the same "category" but pointed out that there are various things people do at the expense of the well being of a pet.

What is quite telling is your insistence on lackluster responses based upon misreading by intent or otherwise other comments that don't necessarily follow your point of view.

Click to expand...

A leash can make a dog uncomfortable, though. As long as it isn't painfully uncomfortable, I don't care. And before you say it, yes my parents at one point made me wear something that made me physically uncomfortable. They told me to get over it.

Which I did.

Which you should do.

Then again, if people got over the small crap, this thread wouldn't be around.

Michael Goff said:

It doesn't have a purpose, but it is hardly a horrible thing. Two people losing their jobs wont change anything, aside from maybe two families not having somebody bringing in money to feed them. Congratulations on wanting two families to suffer because you think this is without purpose.

Click to expand...

I am still waiting for the logic in any of your comments. We are obviously miles apart in our opinions. I will leave with yours.

I don't like it because it seems to just be unnecessary. I am unsure if the dog will experience any pain afterwards. I'm not certain others can insure the dog won't feel pain. It just seemed needless and as needless as cropping ears and docking tails.

Declawing is considered cruel, I totally get this and I had to come to a decision to abandon my cat or have it done. He developed a habit that was destroying carpet, carpet in apartments I did not own. If he was destroying my own stuff I may have actually just tried to figure out ways to deal with it. I tried soft paws, he continued to chew them off. I worried about his health and choking. I tried sprays, one that ruined a part of the carpet so I ended up paying all the same. I tried the sticky tape and everything else. I added more scratching posts and boards, more catnip to keep him occupied. Nothing was stopping the behavior. Call me cruel but with the aide of a vet, I tried what I could. The very last resort was declawing. It cost me double due to age and additional tests and precautions but 5 years later he is okay. He's the same silly jerkface cat that I've always had and given that the alternative was a shelter that would probably kill him if he couldn't be adopted, I think I did good.

I cannot think of any reason how someone would justify a tattoo on a dog short of the identification. My dog has a little line on her belly, it was put on before I adopted her and it apparently tells vets she is spayed. She was spayed to control the population I assume. Another act that happened prior to adoption.

Maybe seeing the dog the way they showed was just more difficult. I just can't see why the dog needed to have a tattoo.

firedept said:

I am still waiting for the logic in any of your comments. We are obviously miles apart in our opinions. I will leave with yours.

Click to expand...

My logic is that the dog wasn't physically named and firing somebody is a vast overreaction to something you just don't like.

GoCubsGo said:

I don't like it because it seems to just be unnecessary. I am unsure if the dog will experience any pain afterwards. I'm not certain others can insure the dog won't feel pain. It just seemed needless and as needless as cropping ears and docking tails.

Declawing is considered cruel, I totally get this and I had to come to a decision to abandon my cat or have it done. He developed a habit that was destroying carpet, carpet in apartments I did not own. If he was destroying my own stuff I may have actually just tried to figure out ways to deal with it. I tried soft paws, he continued to chew them off. I worried about his health and choking. I tried sprays, one that ruined a part of the carpet so I ended up paying all the same. I tried the sticky tape and everything else. I added more scratching posts and boards, more catnip to keep him occupied. Nothing was stopping the behavior. Call me cruel but with the aide of a vet, I tried what I could. The very last resort was declawing. It cost me double due to age and additional tests and precautions but 5 years later he is okay. He's the same silly jerkface cat that I've always had and given that the alternative was a shelter that would probably kill him if he couldn't be adopted, I think I did good.

I cannot think of any reason how someone would justify a tattoo on a dog short of the identification. My dog has a little line on her belly, it was put on before I adopted her and it apparently tells vets she is spayed. She was spayed to control the population I assume. Another act that happened prior to adoption.

Maybe seeing the dog the way they showed was just more difficult. I just can't see why the dog needed to have a tattoo.

Click to expand...

At least you acknowledge that the precedent was set centuries ago, but cropping ears and tales seems to go mostly unnoticed. Same goes for selective breeding, imo. Not all reasons for selective breeding has to do with a working functional characteristic (like sheep dog) other than to please the whim of a human.

Regarding declawed cats, and as the previous owner of 3 cats simultaneously (they have all passed on), for indoor cats, this is a must IMO, for which there is a good reason, for the home owner, but not necessarily for the cat unless as you considered, it was making the cat compatible and allowed it to continue living in a human home and enjoying as far as domestication goes, a good life.

If there is an indication that a tattoo would cause an animal continuing discomfort, then I would have to rethink my position.

it's OK in my world...

people do silly stuff, that's one of the reasons it's fun to hear about other people.

1. The dog will have a recovery time during which it will be in pain/discomfort and at risk of infection. Also, it was unable to give consent. Marking an animal for identification (like a small marking in the ear) seems reasonable as it is there to help the animal's wellbeing should it go missing. I've never heard of the ear tattoo thing but my cats are all microchipped. Re: branding of cattle, I'm vegetarian so no real point in weighing in on that

2. Re: declawing, if you're cutting the end off your cat's toes because you love your sofa, you need to reconsider animal ownership. It's illegal here in the UK for good reason - it's mutilation and affects the cat's wellbeing.

I'm not a PETA member or generally even a supporter of theirs (toolbags that they tend to be) but animal rights are very important. I can't understand how some of the replies here are so flippant.

JG