Tattoo Artist Inks His Sedated Dog

Huntn said:

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.

Click to expand...

I can't say the dog is uncomfortable after a tattoo, no one will probably be able to say that with any scientific backing. It is just something that seemed hard to look at. As for the cat, I agree. For me it was a matter of dropping him off knowing he'd be put to sleep within a certain time frame or declawing. It was not for not trying, I wished it hadn't come to that. I was nervous about the outcome of things but with extra precautions taken, he was in good hands and seems to be okay 5 years later.

gibbsjoh said:

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

Click to expand...

Re declawing. If you were responding at all to what I wrote then you didn't read at all. However, taking into account that it is not about what I wrote (or me in general) I will agree that if declawing comes as a result of trying to save a couch then by all means, perhaps pet ownership is something to reconsider. I, however, did not have a choice. Had he decided that my couch was his target then I would have dealt with it, as I wrote above. He did not. His chosen target was carpet that is laid in apartments that I do not own. The outcome was severely damaging the carpets which resulted in excessive fees being charged for repairs or do have him declawed so that he and I could enjoy life together. Dropping him off somewhere that will likely end in his untimely death seemed to be slightly worse than the "mutilation" of his toes.

I did the front, never the rear, not that it matters. His well being was taken into account thus the increased cost of tests and monitors during surgery. In the end, I again express, 5 years later he is as happy as any cat seems to be and in fact, the only change I saw in him was he tends to be more open to meeting people in the house. Before he would hide for days. I can't say there is a direct correlation, but that change occurred after surgery.

I stand by my decision because once again, it allowed him to continue to live here and live in general. Killing a cat because shelters are riddled with them happens far too frequently.

gibbsjoh said:

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

Click to expand...

In their dominion of the planet, human beings have never asked for an animals consent as if animals could give it. Owners may or may not take the animals well being into account, especially if you plan on eating them. Usually for pets, they do, but what is in the best interests of the animal is mostly up to the owner.

Regarding declawing, if you have exclusively indoor cats, declawing does not adverse a cat's well being. You know how cats like to kneed you leg? All of my cats after being declawed continued this friendly action as if they had their claws. They even sharpened their imaginary claws on my Yamaha speakers which would have been a huge deal if in reality they have been shredding them. I saw no adverse effects. And as we've discussed, a cat would be decidedly be better off in a good home versus being feral, or in the pound.

gibbsjoh said:

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.

Click to expand...

Consent?!? Jeebus, it's a dog, not a person.

Tomorrow said:

Consent?!? Jeebus, it's a dog, not a person.

Click to expand...

Dogs are pets not by choice and put up with considerable abuse or non-quality care and we as humans have the capacity to treat them humanely. I hope you don't have any pets because obviously you really don't get the point that was being made.

The part I don't get is this:

Veterinarians sometimes tag dogs with small tatoos after operations — but vanity tattoos are not the same, she said.

“It helps animal-welfare professionals clearly identify animals that have been altered . . . The incident in question is not at all comparable, ” she said.

Click to expand...

I suppose one could argue the differences in "motives" between identification and vanity tattoos but the way I see it, the end result is still exactly the same thing - a tattoo the animal did not ask for.

I don't think a dog cares much if any what gets tattooed into its flesh - all they know is it was an unpleasant experience. As long as owners don't use their pets as a living, breathing tattoo exhibit, I see no practical reason why it would be frowned upon.

phrehdd said:

Dogs are pets not by choice and put up with considerable abuse or non-quality care and we as humans have the capacity to treat them humanely. I hope you don't have any pets because obviously you really don't get the point that was being made.

Click to expand...

No offense, but you sound like PETA. Let's put some science into it and figure out a way to allow our pets to give their consent for everything, including to be pets. And if they don't want to be pets, what would you suggest be done with them? How about if they don't like being confined to the yard where many cities have ordinances about loose animals?

On a different note, I had 3 cats (at one time), they were all declawed, and they were all over me every day craving affection. I suppose they could have been suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

phrehdd said:

I hope you don't have any pets because obviously you really don't get the point that was being made.

Click to expand...

I get the point, I just don't agree with it.

If you own a pet, you don't need it's consent for anything. I'm not saying that gives you a free pass to be cruel, but you're answering to humans if you mistreat an animal. You don't need the animal's permission, you need society's.

Tomorrow said:

I get the point, I just don't agree with it.

If you own a pet, you don't need it's consent for anything. I'm not saying that gives you a free pass to be cruel, but you're answering to humans if you mistreat an animal. You don't need the animal's permission, you need society's.

Click to expand...

This is not about consent, it is about putting an animal through discomfort for the sake of vanity. If an animal knew it was going to be put through some pain for no apparent reason, it would most likely back off and try to avoid it. They often don't because they trust* their masters. I hope you understand my point.

Now just a bit curious - dogs have fur and wouldn't that cover up the tattoo? Why do it? Of course one could continually shave the dog's fur off to show that tattoo and refer to the owner that screams for attention.

phrehdd said:

This is not about consent, it is about putting an animal through discomfort for the sake of vanity. If an animal knew it was going to be put through some pain for no apparent reason, it would most likely back off and try to avoid it. They often don't because they trust* their masters. I hope you understand my point.

Now just a bit curious - dogs have fur and wouldn't that cover up the tattoo? Why do it? Of course one could continually shave the dog's fur off to show that tattoo and refer to the owner that screams for attention.

Click to expand...

There was no discomfort, no pain, it was sedated. And if the fur is white and thin, you'd be able to see color ink through it. :|

Michael Goff said:

There was no discomfort, no pain, it was sedated. And if the fur is white and thin, you'd be able to see color ink through it. :|

Click to expand...

Any vet can tell you it is not a good practice to arbitrarily sedate a dog. There are always risks. Here is another case of justifying some vanity at the expense of a "pet." As for short hair dogs, sorry but a tattoo would still be veiled somewhat. Was the dog in the original posting an all white dog with very very short hair?

FYI - to be totally "pain free" during the process, a dog would have to be unconscious not just "sedated." To simply make a dog groggy doesn't guarantee any facet of the process being painless. Again, putting a dog fully under is an unnecessary elective medical action. You can argue until you are blue in the face but it doesn't change the facts as put forth be the veterinarian practice.

phrehdd said:

Any vet can tell you it is not a good practice to arbitrarily sedate a dog. There are always risks. Here is another case of justifying some vanity at the expense of a "pet." As for short hair dogs, sorry but a tattoo would still be veiled somewhat. Was the dog in the original posting an all white dog with very very short hair?

FYI - to be totally "pain free" during the process, a dog would have to be unconscious not just "sedated." To simply make a dog groggy doesn't guarantee any facet of the process being painless. Again, putting a dog fully under is an unnecessary elective medical action. You can argue until you are blue in the face but it doesn't change the facts as put forth be the veterinarian practice.

Click to expand...

Did you read the article? He had been put under for surgery. :|

phrehdd said:

Any vet can tell you it is not a good practice to arbitrarily sedate a dog. There are always risks. Here is another case of justifying some vanity at the expense of a "pet." As for short hair dogs, sorry but a tattoo would still be veiled somewhat. Was the dog in the original posting an all white dog with very very short hair?

FYI - to be totally "pain free" during the process, a dog would have to be unconscious not just "sedated." To simply make a dog groggy doesn't guarantee any facet of the process being painless. Again, putting a dog fully under is an unnecessary elective medical action. You can argue until you are blue in the face but it doesn't change the facts as put forth be the veterinarian practice.

Click to expand...

Seriously? I know people don't read linked articles but the OP quoted this:

“She had her spleen removed yesterday, and the vet let me tattoo her while she was under,” he said.

rdowns said:

Seriously? I know people don't read linked articles but the OP quoted this:

“She had her spleen removed yesterday, and the vet let me tattoo her while she was under,” he said.

Click to expand...

Ever had a tattoo? Anyone who has knows there is irritation in the region where the tattoo was created. The longer a dog is kept under, the higher the risks. This is not an opinion but a fact.

I wonder why this thread is reminding me of the PETA "I'd rather be naked than wear fur" campaign?



If you google PETA Ads you'll see quite a few provocative images involving semi-clothed models and celebrities.

phrehdd said:

This is not about consent

Click to expand...

My comment - the one to which you replied - most certainly was about consent:

gibbsjoh said:

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.

Click to expand...

You even brought it up yourself:

phrehdd said:

Dogs are pets not by choice

Click to expand...

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...

Neutering is for their own health, not to satisfy the vanity of the owner (i presume thats what you mean by cutting off nards?).

Declawing is an evil practice, cropping ears and tails is pointless and stupid unless its a working dog. People who make their pets wear clothes need to seek psychological help unless its a hairless variety that genuinely needs the extra warmth sometimes.

People that tattoo pets for fun (id tats in the ears are a good idea) should be prosecuted for animal cruelty.