Man Tattoos Pet Pit Bull

[Jazzy]

A man tattooed his pet pit bull and is facing stark criticism from animal lovers across the nation. Ernesto Rodriguez, a North Carolina tattoo artist, posted pictures of his pet pit bull on his Facebook page, sparking outrage and controversy about animal cruelty.



Rodriguez tattooed his five-month-old pit bull on the stomach. He states that he tattooed Dutchess in the tattoo parlor that he operates in the basement of his home.

Link to picture: http://www.inquisitr...3/03/dogtat.jpg



As reported by WXII 12, the design includes her name and a crest that Rodriguez states is related to her bloodline. He contends that the tattoo can be used for identification purposes, and was not cruel. Rodriguez references branding of farm animals as a comparative example. He also points out that tattooing pets is a somewhat common practice.



Tattoos are applied to humans and animals using a solid needle which injects ink under the skin. The tattoo “gun” operates at a high rate of speed piercing the skin repeatedly. As reported by Discovery, the needle pierces the “skin between 50 and 3,000 times per minute.”Tattoos can be quite painful. However, for many, the process is worth the opportunity to display artwork on their body. Many designs are custom made or symbolic to the recipient. Getting a tattoo is a very personal decision, and it should never be forced.Critics of Rodriguez contend that his dog was not given a choice and furthermore does not have the capacity to make that choice. After posting a picture of Dutchess’s new belly tattoo, Rodriguez’s Facebook page became a virtual battle ground.

Full article



In your opinion, would you consider this animal cruelty?

 

[Evil Eye]

Sort of. A somewhat mild example, but I doubt it was very pleasant for the dog.

As for comparing it to branding... there's no way that doesn't hurt

 

[boatswife]

I agree, it had to be unpleasant for the dog and I don't think it was right of him to do that.



I do know that dog breeders tatoo their dogs. Not sure how common it is now with the microchips. Our Beagle, that we rescued years ago, had a tatoo on the inside of his ear. Our current shelter dogs have tatoo dots on their abdomens, but that was done while they were being spayed/neutered, so they were asleep. It is the counties policy to do that so they can be recognized that they have had the surgery.

 

[Jazzy]

I adopted a Greyhound and they have ears tattoos. Here's the explanation as to what they mean:



A greyhound's right ear tattoo represents the month, year and tattoo order of your dogs litter. The last number before the letter is his year of birth, the first one or two numbers is his month of birth. The letter represents the order in which the litter was tattooed (it does not mean the order of birth).



For example: 109E means the dog was born in October 1999 and was the fifth dog in the litter to be tattooed.



The left ear contains a tattoo representing his actual National Greyhound Association litter registration number.



As far as the Pit Bull goes, I found that to be unnecessary and cruel.

 

[Sk8]

I have tattoos and the pain is relative: the sensory receptors to an animal (in the way the experience pain) compared to a human also makes the argument moot to a point if we simply discuss levels of pain; this animal was not aggressively beaten, and tattooing is a type of branding. However, what has to be asked Was this necessary? This was an individual's opportunity to spread word of mouth of his tattoo shop via tattooing his own animal, arguably decorating his pet to suite his own tastes, which does go beyond the levels of what is necessary.



However, for a pit bull owner, this is no more different than boxing a dog's ears or cutting its tail: its all cosmetic. The dog was well behaved, or sedated, otherwise he would not have been able to get such a clean line with his tattoo gun. Regardless, when compared to other pet-altering practices, it falls right in line with the rest (as far as I see in way of pain/excess).