Answers To This Question
While I question giving a dog a 'cosmetic' tattoo, no matter how well the dog was anesthetized or cared for afterward, some people are now opting to tattoo their dogs for identification purposes rather than microchipping which is now being questioned as to its safety.
A lot of people have tattoes now. Some have them all over their bodies and neck, and sometimes on their face also. While I would not tattoo my dog, since so many people like tattoes, they probably think it is all right to tattoe their dog also. I do not think they think they are being cruel to the dog.
I think it depends. Some people have dogs that they hold dearly, and sometimes they don't feel 100% safe with the microchipping. As long as the dog isn't in pain and is well rested during healing processes of having the tattoo, it's perfectly fine. I would get my dog a tattoo, just so I can tell her from miles away. But think of it this way; A tattoo is just like a microchip. It feels the exact same. The only difference is, you can't see the microship as you can with the tattoo. My dog is microchipped and she didn't like anyone touching her neck when she had it done. It's the exact same as her having a tattoo. Obviously I give my dog what she wants so I wouldn't give her a tattoo
I do not really know if this is good or bad. I do know that tarroes are very popular with a lot of people and maybe this guy just thought it would be cool if his dog also had a tattoo. Guess this subject will come up some more. I do not plan to give my dog a tattoo.
Some dogs like racing dogs and show dogs are tattooed. But tattooing designs, owners names or etc. on dogs is wrong. Even though they are under anesthesia, there is in fact lingering pain. What I don't understand is the man tattooed a design on her belly, which he can't see unless she was on her back. Also the stomach is a tender part of anybody's body. I just think it was wrong, it didn't need to be done. What was the purpose of tattooing a mostly hidden part of a dogs body? I would love an answer for that.
Its looked to be on the tender area of his tummy, like yaauh that would hurt an a lot of it... but after watchen the video on how the dogs are being treated for HUMAN consumtion in china this week,,, beat choked cute open with a knife dragged stabbed skinned alive the tattoo wasn't as bad... but like I said it was the tender part of his tummy ouch..
Greyhounds are tattoed to race , on their ear , and i double they are anaesthetised to do it on their ear
All of my dogs have their registration numbers inked onto their inner right thigh and my initials along with their name on the inner left; laboratories, which are fond of using Beagles and other hounds, cannot buy inked animals and ears can be removed to circumvent the law.
While this was an elaborate piece and no mention was made as to the type of equipment used, I can attest that the set up I use does not cause lingering pain. My dogs are inked while awake and the area is generally completely healed 48 to 72 hours later.
Depends for me, My dogs have a small tattoo from being spayed or neutered, He said the dog was completly out so he must have been near a vet, his dog looks taken care of, me personally would never do this, but my vet tattoed my dogs to prove they were fixed, so you cant really judge him, also army dogs get a tattoo inside of their ear for identification.
Pure bred dogs were and still are routinely tattooed with identification numbers or their registry numbers for identification purposes. Some people use "chips" inserted under the skin and scanned by a chip reader. It is common practice among veterinarians and commonly accepted for responsible pet owners. A tattoo can be read by anyone. A Chip requires a chip reader. Both are slightly painful and both will save your dogs life. A bit of forgotten discomfort for a lifetime of protection is considered acceptable by all reasoning persons.
Only time a dog should be tattooed is for identification purposes.
TATOOE'S ARE FOR PEOPLE, NOT DOGS. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD, ARE YA ALL NUTS!
I wouldnt say this is cruelty, but everyone has their opinion! If the dog was not hurt in the process I dont see what the issue would be? Its no different then branding animals which is much more painful then tattooing. If people are saying the dog had no say in this situation, does an animal have a say in being euthanized? NO! I dont see the point of anything really. An animal can not speak for its self. Tattoos are art and has been going on for ccenturies. If this is deemed cruel then tattooing of an animal at the spay clinic should be deemed cruel as well. I honestly think people are blowing this way out of proportion.
In my opinion this act is an act of "cruelty". Does not matter if the dog was asleep or not, there is still pain afterwards. Everyone that I know that has a tatoo says there is pain afterward, so How do You Know that the dog didn't feel anything and wasn't or is not in pain? YES the dog felt the change and pain of that tatoo. And by the way, you can put chips in your pets in case they get lost. I LOVE MY 4 legged babies, and would never subject them to this kind of cruel act!!
Just Saying!! and if you use a vet that doesn't use topical on your 4 legged baby, then you just might need to consider another vet. My vet treats my KIDS, just like she would want to be treated, for she knows that they're my KIDS, and I don't want them to hurt. No unnecessary pain to be inflicted by myself or any other! If that was to happen then whomever will answer to me, and that would not be pretty :)
I WILL FIGHT for all my 4 Pawz!!
Unnecessary is not specifically cruelty. Doubt that the dog cares much one way or the other. While it's not something I'd do myself (and I have a couple of tats) time that we stop legislating everything. Dog's fine, owner's fine... there's too much actual abuse in this world to go around looking for trouble where it doesn't exist.
This tattoo was of no benefit to the dog,so was completely unnecessary.I would definitely not do something like this to my dog
I vote no. Nobody should tattoo a dog for their own pleasure. Tattoo to Identify your dog in case he or her is lost, then yes but not that.
And a tattoo inside the ear or a small marking to identify a dog is one thing, but this ridiculous tattoo was done for the owner's pleasure. And how does he know the dog feels no pain? My son has tattoos, and some have given him pain afterwards. No, this is pure abuse, plain and simple, a human's ego taken out on a defenseless animal.
My dog was tattooed inside his ear by the HUMANE ASSOCIATION before releasing him for adoption. It's a seriel number as if he was in a concentration camp. I hate it. But, I spend my time fighting for dogs who are in danger - abused and neglected to the point that their lives are in danger.
In my opinion dogs are like children. They are part of your family. They can't speak for themselves and depend on you to make the right decisions for their welfare. It is illegal to tat a child in the
US and therefore should be illegal to tat a dog in the US. If a vet is the one administering the anesthetic and performing the tat procedure in a country like the UK where you have to tat your dog (Pitbull), that is one thing, but this article reads that the owner of the dog is the one who administered the anesthetic and did the procedure. Would you put your child under a anesthetic and do surgery? Going under anesthetic is dangerous in itself, a number of things could have gone wrong (thank god it didn't). Micro-chipping a dog is no more than a pinch or a slight ting like a vaccination and is administered by a vet. It comes with its own unique identifier to its proper owner. I have read these posts and find it disturbing that people can justify tatting a dog ok like branding livestock. Two entirely different scenarios altogether.
i voted depends but after reading all the remarks and the storey more threw i think this owner is sick. a tattoo of a tag from pure breed is one thing but to tattoo a dog like this is mortifying!
Y do vets tattoo the female dogs after fixing them. It may not be a big tattoo but still a tattoo. No if the man's dog was asleep while doing it, it felt no pain. Its his way of tagging his pup.
It is most definitely animal cruelty. What in the heck does a dog need a tattoo for, so the owner can act cool. I am sure the dog doesn't know one bit of difference. Anesthetized at the time or not, does not stop the pain the dog feels after, then force pain pills down his throat to keep him comfortable, and for what? So THE OWNER can think he is cool, having a dog with a tattoo. Dog couldn't make the choice himself. Medically necessary, or personally necessary things like microchips or shots, or surgery are completely different. A tattooed dog is blatantly stupid, and pure torture.
What a stupid thing to do! This serves no purpose for the animal. This is just for self gratification of her owner. More unnecessary than cruelty I find that this is another example of dogs being used as a symbol rather than treated as family members. He would have done it purely because he thought it was 'cool'. Dutchess has no means for consent.
while it's questionable. There are much greater cases of cruelty that need to be addressed. Dogs are being tortured and killed. When that never happens again, I'll worry about tattoos.
This is wrong on any level. I have tatoos, they are very painful to have done. It looks as if the dog has some staff infections going on around her tatoo! Sick people.
Sorry, I have a problem with this. I think it is cruel to tattoo a dog! It is painful while healing. And if his reason was so she wouldn't get lost, the best way to ensure that she would not get lost would be to take her to a vet and get her micro chipped.
Wow, my phone has lit up over this one! What a forum. I think the whole thing is dumb, and do not particularly like it at all, but mostly like Eva, because I am not into tattoos. Also, if you have the money to blow doing this to a dog, then why not use it instead for other dogs who do not have food or care? Eva is right, they can't make an educated decision......"oh, please dad, can I get a tattoo????" Of course they feel pain, so I do question the owners decision, but if the dog is well cared for, then what are you going to do? I personally think he has WAY too much time on his hands to schedule a "tattoo appointment." for a dog.
Well I wanted to vote Yes but mistakenly voted No. Please change that if you can Mr Moderator.
my point on this would be would the law allow you to tattoo you newborn child with the family name if not then why your pet ?
And as an animal lover, this action by someone trying to make others believe that they care for their animal not only makes me angry, it disgusts me.
Agree with all of David's comments. Just because we are referred to as the owner of an animal, does not make them our property. It is a legal term used to assign responsibility for their care, welfare and restraint where required. We are not the owners of our children because the term used is "parent" but the expectations are the same.
There is a reason we adopt pets. There is a reason pet stores have become illegal in some states. Many animal lovers consider their pets part of their family and not property. Many animal lovers would not make their pets go through any useless cosmetic procedure that serves no practical purpose. People who would put their dogs through tattooing do not care about the welfare of their dog because they are forcing the dog that serves no purpose in making the dog's life better. The pain does not end immediate when a tattoo is applied so thye dog suffered pain for its caretakers vanity.
David, apparently you either didn't read my posts at all or you only read what you wanted to read into them. NO OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO ABUSE, NEGLECT OR HARM A PET !! I have repeatedly said that I am against abuse of animals. Don't put words into my mouth that I did not say!!! It is you who have likened getting a tattoo on a pet to far worse abuse. You who say it was unnecessary, and you accuse the owner of using anesthetic unlawfully. How do you even know that it wasn't a licensed vet that put this dog under? You don't, do you?? You are making assumptions and innuendoes . Both of my dogs are rescues that I have had since they were 6 months old. They are healthy, happy animals and are the darlings of the apartment complex where I live, and heaven help any person who would dare to try to harm either of them.
What else would you call a pet except 'property'? What designation would you rather give to cats, dogs, cattle, horses, birds, fish, llamas, goats, etc. Even in law, we are the 'owners', thereby making the animals 'property'. We are responsible for their well being and also legally responsible for their care and their actions should they cause any damage or harm to others or others 'property'. They are bought and paid for and aren't we all known as pet 'owners'? Most dog & cat owners that I know are loving, caring, kind, affectionate and responsible owners of their pets. I realize there are other owners who are indifferent, and still others who should never be allowed to own a pet. Allthough emotionally I feel that my dogs are my 'babies', I am still their 'owner' and they are still my 'property'. I would not even have addressed the subject of pets as property if it hadn't been brought up, as it is just simply semantics. A rose by any other name.........
Designer breeds is just a term. It is true that many breeds of dogs have been developed because of selective breeding. Certain breeds were developed for companionship. Breeds of dogs are not developed as an accessory. BTW, I never said anathesia was illegal. Anathesia is given to by dr or vet to perform medical procedures. There is a reason. Anathesia is given by someone who goes to medical school. BTW, spaying or neutering is not elective surgery. Not only does it help control the pet population, studies have found the surgery extends pets lives. Dogs do not need tattoos. People who use dogs for accessories have pets for the wrong reason. Someone decided one of my rescues that she needed to suffer so they he hit with a car and allowed her to almost die from her injuries. She eventually lost her a leg. According to your logic, her previous owner have the right to harm her.
It appears to me, from the marks on this dogs underbelly in the picture, that she was most likely 'knocked out' because she was being spayed and perhaps she was tattooed at the same time. The tattoo has healed completely but the scars from the spaying will be with her for life. And to say that "no dog breed is asthetic" seems quite incorrect. Haven't you seen all the 'designer' dogs that have cropped up lately. People breed, buy and adopt dogs to suit their (the persons) needs. A guard dog for security, a lap dog to cuddle with, a hyper dog to exercise with, a fashionable dog to dress up and show off, a dog to herd the sheep, or whatever. Were we simply interested in owning a 'dog' for dogs sake, they would still be very similar to the wolf. BTW I checked with my vet. He knows of no law that makes it illegal to anesthetize a dog and no law against tattooing them.
No dog breed is asthetic!! All dog breed have a purpose without humanity. Wow! This breaks a new level of stupidity. Dog breeds were developed through selective breeding but they are still dogs with a purpose besides looking cute. Tattoos are not necessary. Dogs are not just property! No vet or doctor recommends anasthesia unless its absolutely necessary an would not say it is ok to apply a tattoo. My pets were treated as property and they were mistreated. Dogs have feelings. Dogs trust we will not mistreat them. Duchess was knocked out because she would have probably bitten her owner and he would have deserved it.
You''ve done well David, thank you.
I am trying to tactfully say that certain people are not going to change their minds about animals because they lack the intellegence and compassion. They do not believe they are wrong. I have cared for many rescued dogs who were litterally thrown away or mistreated. I have gotten so angry because of peoples limited minds. I am amazed how much love my rescue dogs have eventhough they have the right not to trust people. I am not using blinders. I am saying certain people lack the intellegence, compassion and humanity to care for anything
Then you have gathered correctly.
How can you ciritize an act like this based on the fact that it is self serving to the owner, then dismiss the fact that people purchase or adopt pets for themselves or family members? If owning a pet wasn't self serving in the first place, then aesthetic breeding wouldn't exist in the first place. Half of the breeds that exist now wouldn't, and our connection with the animals would never have come this far.
Domestication of canines began because humans needed to be self serving. We needed dogs. So we took dogs. We allowed dogs into our lives.
There is a such thing as compassion, and then there is picking your battles. I am not 'suggesting' that an owner can do what he or she wants with their pet, as long as their basic needs are met, I am 'stating' it.
It is a FACT and it is a LAW.
If it wasn't, this article would not be a debate, and it not need a poll.
OH BTW... thank you David and Matthew..... good points! appreciate it.... and also a positive forum you bring, instead of defensiveness. :D
Unfortunately, some people obviously think pets are property and have no rights. In a perfect world, those people would not be allowed to own pets or breed. We just have to hope they eventually learn compassion. Trying to teach them differently is like trying to speak to a brick wall.
No Matthew, I do not fail to see anything. If I choose to tattoo my dogs, for whatever reasons, it would not be against any legal or moral law, and it would be my business as the owner and caregiver of the dog, not yours. Since you find it to be such a terrible thing, by all means don't tattoo your animals. We humans are entitled to make our own choices and have our own opinions. Mine is as valid as yours. Abuse, neglect, starvation, fighting, and otherwise inflicting harm and pain on any animal is despicable. I would have a much different opinion had that been the case here. This dog seems happy and well cared for, and the local authorities in it's area seem to be in agreement of that. Get over it already.
Eva you too fail to see a difference between tattooing a dog for personal enjoyment, and spaying/neutring/feeding boring dog food etc. That's all we need to know.
OK so some of you think that since the dog couldn't give her consent that she should not have gotten the tattoo. By that reasoning, she also didn't give her consent to spaying, chipping, perhaps ear cropping or tail docking; I am also sure she would never consent to being harnessed, leashed, collared, chained, vaccinated, fenced in or caged, fed boring dry dog food or made to sleep in the laundry room. What a nightmare she would be. Get real people. A dog is a dog is a dog. She cannot reason or do sums, write her name nor build a rocket. And she certainly doesn't know what informed consent is. Only rare dogs have 'jobs' and then only at the command of an owner or handler and only for specific types of work which involves their natural capacities of smell, sight, hearing and ferociousness. I don't believe they even bring home a salary. On the other hand, as responsible owners of dogs we house and feed them, train them, keep them safe, make sure they have proper medical care such as heartworm testing and prevention & flea repellant. We bathe them and walk and exercise them. These are just some of the things they cannot do for themselves, so why don't you all quit giving them human qualities. Yes, they are loveable, and sweet, and cute, protective, cuddly, and loyal, and have many other good canine qualities. They have some intelligence and can learn to behave, perform tricks and do other things that amuse us, make us laugh, and sometime amaze us. But they are NOT human. Personally, I would not have my dogs tattooed, only because I don't particularly care for tattoos, but I don't think this owner did anything wrong by tattooing his dog. Some of you talk about getting consent from the dog, but just realize that means there would be a 50/50 chance that she would have said YES !!!
I think what it is Nessa is that you lack a sense of compassion for the animal. What you are suggesting is that as long as a dog is properly fed and housed, an owner can essentially do to it as he pleases, being that it is his property, like a car or a TV. Tattooing a dog is unnecessary and self serving to the owner. Using illegal drugging agents and dispensing them to the dog for the purpose of tattoing the dog is illegal. What did you think, that the man took the dog to the vet and asked them to put him under so he could practice calligraphy? It was wrong what the man did, but you seem ok with it, and that's what we gather from this exchange.
Everything you are all saying would be grand and great and would make perfect sense if any dog, or any pet for that matter, wasn't considered PROPERTY of the owner. If the pet was lawfully considered an independent being with the ability or lawfully given choice of deciding and thinking for it self, if not having the label to be considered like a piece of property or land; then all of this would make sense.
Unfortunetly, pets are not considered as such, and the owner can do what he or she pleases, as long as the animal has it's very basic of needs kept in high enough standards.
Maybe, rather then complaining that someone isn't treating an animal as you would, it would be best to fight the law that makes animals property rather then beings that deserve to be treated with the moral standards of children. Otherwise these types of arguments will go no where.
At this point in time, the dog is fine, whether being put under was risky or not (Not to mention being put under is ALWAYS risky. Mentioning this in court or anywhere else is more of a numbers game of chance then liability), she is healthy, looks well fed, and the guy obviously likes his pets enough to spend a lot of money on them; so they certainly aren't the most worse off pooches in the world. Definitely not one of the thousands under care of humans.
Quote from NESSA
The collective amount of hate being placed here could really be used to put more serious cases to rest, maybe in your own area and not on the internet?
Agree about the hate, but disagree on other statements in your txt. Several of us wouldnt want to be essentially drugged, and then wake up with an alteration on self. hmmmmm ya think about that.
Makes me wonder a lot, about people, myself, and do this in all fairness.
Some have indicated, that this energy shouldnt be applied on internet.... one finger point.. three back... actually try it.. there is a thumb pointing too.
SO, I'll take my opinion, try my best to be kind, and YES!!! I"LL TAKE MY ENERGY TO THE LOCAL WORLD!!! GREAT IDEA... oh,,, already doing that.
David, Matthew, thank YOU BOTH!...
I believe some like we've mentioned are missing the point.
I believe most are in agreement of a small mark a small thing done, for protection of our babies.
WE, because we can reason make the decision, for their safety only, if we are the responsible sort. Decorating and animal .. on a permanent level, well I cant do.
Thank you for a positive discussion.
Nessa is another one who doesn't get it. Of course the dog can't talk. That's why they shouldn't have tattooed the dog. Only people with ability to give consent should be given tattoos. Why is this difficult for you to understand? Is it me? It's her right? Yeah it's her.
Duchess had no choice in the matter. The tattoo is totally unnecessary. The dog was given anasthesia by a tattoo artist and not a vet. A vet would not put a dog under anasthesia for a useless tattoos. Duchess could have died because the anathesia was given by a tattoo artist and not a vet. There are always risks in being put under. Duchess did not need the tattoo. The tattoo is for Duchess's owner and does not benefit the dog in anyway.
How is the dog expected of choosing? The majority of you talk as if the dog could stood up, brushed herself off and say,"Oh no no, I don't want that at all." I think we have forgotten what animal cruelty is, and are on a path of self righteous blow ups. "Cruelty to animals is the infliction of suffering or harm upon animals, other than humans, for purposes other than self-defense"
This dog was not harmed, she's was put under. She's obviously well fed, and looks calm and happy.
The collective amount of hate being placed here could really be used to put more serious cases to rest, maybe in your own area and not on the internet?
To suggest that this is comparable to duct taping a dogs nose up and throwing it off a bridge is at best ludicrous. Dont get me wrong as i`ve said its most certainly not something i`d do. Dogs have a much higher tolerance of pain than we do, pit`s more so, i doubt pain is what it was feeling. Confusion as to why is this happening definitely. That in my book is still cruelty.
Never in 40 years of dog ownership or 12 dogs whatever you prefer have i come across a dog that likes a bath tho i`ve no doubt some do if they don't like it they don't get it, mud and general dirt just falls off anyway, if its ever something that needs to come off for their or my own health then its compulsory bath time but that's never happened. If you`ve forced your dog into a bath, brow beaten it until it does unnecessary tricks,made it wear clothes, carry it round in a handbag, fed it until its overweight just because you feel guilty about how it looks at you then your in the same ballpark as this guy and its not the duct tape its face up and throw it away ballpark
You can't look at this as one individual. This individual is setting a precedent for others. He didn't only make a tattoo for identification, he glamorized it to a vanity tattoo, and then advertised it on Facebook. Presto, a whole new industry for the exploitation of animals is born. Advertised by people who want money, to the vanity and ego of others, with the dogs in the middle. If this practice is not strictly regulated or banned, it will quickly get out of control. Then perhaps you will see stories on DogHeirs about dogs dying from being anesthetized while receiving a vanity tattoo. One of the most dangerous parts of surgery for a dog is the anesthetic. You will see some people get carried away with this, and whole underbellies of dogs will be done. Your also putting them at risk of hepatitis and other serious infections. When a dog is microchipped, it is done with a tool that takes a split second to insert a object about the size of a grain of rice under the skin, compared to a tattoo that can take multiple sittings and is not as affective. You can't compare the moral reasoning behind getting a dog spayed or neutered to one that has none and is done for vanity. Bottom line the microchip is a much less painful alternative, and dose not lend itself to exploitation or vanity.
Threenorns doesn't get it. Tattoos should be reserved for those giving consent to receive them, and not applied to anyone or animal without the ability to choose for themself. Plus he sounds like he needs anger management. I fear for dogs in his care.
i honestly though this a proactive thinning form, on with integrity. I wont participate. let you all argue amongst Self........
It is a lot different than stamping an animal - that is a big tattoo and the reason for this? I cannot see a real on for this.
"the dog didn't choose"!??? are you f--g KIDDING Me!??? what, like the dog's gonna look in the mirror and burst into tears crying "what did you DO to me!???"
if we all of a sudden have to operate on our dogs giving informed consent, then there goes a WHOLE lot of stuff out the window - dogs do not give informed consent for *anything*. that would be why they have *owners*.
and comparing a pain-free tattoo to duct-taping the dog's snout and throwing him off a bridge? seriously!?? get a bloody life. go find something that's actually a problem to stress about bec clearly some ppl lack judgement.
Thank you Doxie, Matthew, and David.........ya get it..rational thinking.
Tatoos on dogs are totally unnecessary and painful. Dogs depend on us to care for them. Dogs are not canvases for people to decorate.
The dog doesn't choose to be tattooed. That's the ONLY piece of information that matters.
I would love to give this asshole a piece of my mind, but can't locate him on facebook. Damn!
Whats with all these assholes who think its ok to duct tape a dog, throw them off bridges, tattoo them, and do whatever they please with these precious animals that just want to love you and be your friend??? Have we become a society of cruel beings, or are there still a majority of us who give a damn?
Sorry, but all these pictures I see and stories I read about animal cruelty by humans pains me as I'm sure it does many here. Needed to vent a bit.
im not a fan of tattoos either, yet i have them on my own choice.... and i know there is a lot of cruelty for the animals that cant talk, cant understand reason, etc... how about chipping or marking the JERKS in the world?
I am not a fan of tattoos on people. That said , I still disagree with many of you who say this is wrong. In the past few days I have seen posts by Dog Heirs that show real animal cruelty. Dogs set on fire, legs broken, dragged behind cars, mouth & legs duct taped and thrown in water, thrown out of moving cars etc. Why are some of you trying to impose your standards on this man who did nothing morally or legally wrong? If you don't want to tattoo your pet, fine! Don't !! But from what I read, this man was within his rights to do this, and the dog was not harmed. It isn't against the law, and it shouldn't be. As for Christi, you shouldn't talk about ignorance, cause it seems to me you are close to the top on that list ~ Of course the dog had no say in it.....They don't have a say in spay or neuter either (duh) but it is certainly legal and often required for pet adoption and responsible pet ownership. True, cruelty exists in this world, but putting a tat on your pet is a far cry from it.
Melissa, not to be disrespectful, as we know forums can be... but seriously, why I dont live where there are snakes, etc. I have extreme, very extreme cold, but have made it so my dog had the security and freedom to come in or out when needed. Yea, Ive lost one dog and thot if only id chipped.... i just upped my security, and aligned dogs focus on something.. frizbee, etc. I know where my dog is at all times.. and she has a ton of freedom. I dont live in a populated area, but there are people and distractions here, most would find Fairbanks, AK as a horrible place.. GOOOD! but there are hidden joys here not even the tourist would find. Good luck.. have fun... with your god...
My dogs say it's animal cruelty to give them a bath, their annual shots, and a clipping.
The fact that the dog was under anesthesia means she felt nothing. That said, I'd wonder who anesthetized the dog; a vet?
The dog was under more danger from the anesthesia than from the tattoo.
My dog got bit by a rattlesnake yesterday. I will GUARANTEE you this: If given a choice, he'd pick a TATTOO over a snake bite.
Then after thinking a bit further.......hmmmmmmm chipping your kid? Tat your kid... so you can identify??? Seriously. Sick people Sick
NO NO NO. Dog had no say in it. And if one has a hard time keeping track of their dog, then they need to evaluate their own life. I have never had any problem identifying my dog. She WANTS to jump in truck, WANTS to go see what im doing. Too many ignorant people, that shouldn't have dogs, let alone KIDS. Tests should be required.
I agree with Darrin and all the other "NOs" This opens the door (as IF it's not already open) to even more kinds of cruelty acts. We already have ways to identify a pet, we don't need humans to use them as a vanity or status thing. I've never agreed with the branding of any animal. It just HAS to be painful.
My dog was tattooed when she was fixed and she had a microchip that she was not put under anesthesia for the chip. I do not find tattooing cruel. With people being what they are it seems to me that this guy is saying this is my dog and there is no way someone could be confused about that. It's his dog and he appears to really love it. From the stories I have read on here before I would say that this dog is in good loving hands. Lets not condemn this guy, instead lets condemn the people who really are abusing animals. To me it does not appear that this is one of those people.
I disagree with this. Tattooing a dog under strictly controlled conditions, for the purpose of identification with strict guidelines as to size, and confined to numbers and letters, is a very different thing than a vanity tattoo. What's next? Hearts, chains, swastikas? Getting a tattoo is a personal choice, and dogs cannot speak for themselves, and there will always be someone who will get carried away with this. We have microchips and dog tags for the purpose of identification in this day and age, and yes I know it's not perfect. Personalized tattoos on dogs are not necessary, and opens the doors to all kinds of problems.
This is a lot less painful than cattle being branded with a hot out of the fire branding iron. Now 'that' is cruel. Apparently this animal was very humanely tattooed. Also this guy seems to be a very responsible pet owner. So let's all vote against cattle branding instead.
Hey, jack ass, tattoo yourself, leave the "I have no say" pets alone.
I really can't see the issue here. What is the difference, creulty wise, between this and the National Dog Registry which involves an AWAKE animal being tattooed with a number? See the link here:
For all the operations that animals get (neutering and spaying, tails bobbed, feral cats ears snipped, and hundreds of other surgeries), I can't see this as being cruel in the least. It sounds as if it were done properly and in the safest way possible.
If it's for breeder identification, like something really small, in the ear tip and under anesthetic... maybe I would agree.... But a tat that size on the belly? No, I don't agree.... even under general anesthetic... That's pure selfishness and showing off...
@ Mark Bailey...Have you seen one of the obligatory UK dog tattoos? I can't find the photo to show you (not my dog) but the numbers are about two inches tall and run from the dogs leg all across her belly - the whole thing is about a foot long. She also has a Frankenstein style scar where they neutered her, before returning to the owner. It's obscene what they have done to her because she is 'a dangerous dog' :(
"She was already under anesthetic. She was asleep, completely asleep."
Surely only a vet can anesthetize a dog?
now, if the dog had been merely restrained while being tattooed or if the tattoo was for a blatantly trolling purpose or something that is offensive and would result in ppl reacting negatively to the dog, that would be cruel and inhumane.
the dog was properly anaesthetised so i fail to see how this is "cruelty". they didn't give my dog anaesthetic - not even a topical - at the vet's when they stabbed into him for the microchip, so is that cruelty or is it different bec it was a vet?
considering how many pit bulls are stolen, i think tattooing is a prudent step to take.
In uk you have to have pitbulls tattooed as part of the registration laws...
Not everyone is humane and whatever can be done cruelly WILL be done cruelly!
» View All Answers
I Voted no its definitely not something i`d do but in this world of lousy owners i must say his dog looks happy with him and is well fed and cared for.
Answer This Question
Log in to leave an answer
Create an account