Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Outrage from animal lovers as man tattoos his own pet DOG

Posted by   + Show Post

 

Poll

Question: Is it cruel?

Options:

Cruel

His dog he can do what he wants.

not cruel


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 68

View Results


A North Carolina man has created huge controversy among animal lovers after tattooing Duchess - his own pet dog.

Ernesto Rodriguez, who is a tattoo artist and Army veteran, inked the 5-month-old purebred American Pit Bull on the underbelly at his basement parlor in Pinnacle, NC, on Wednesday.

When Rodriguez posted pictures of the emblem on Facebook he received fierce criticism from all over the U.S. But the man claims the tattoo can be used for identification and compares it to branding farm animals.

Controversy: This tattoo on a dog's belly has caused a storm between a North Carolina tattoo artist and animal lovers all over the U.S.

Controversy: This tattoo on a dog's belly has caused a storm between a North Carolina tattoo artist and animal lovers all over the U.S.

Duchess: Ernesto Rodriguez inked the 5-month-old purebred American Pit Bull at his basement parlor in North Carolina

Duchess: Ernesto Rodriguez inked the 5-month-old purebred American Pit Bull at his basement parlor in North Carolina

Rodriguez says that the design of the tattoo is related to Duchess's pedigree bloodline, according to WXII12. He claims that his pet was anesthetized and 'didn’t feel anything.'

'She got up and she’s been fine,' Rodriguez added.

But as soon as the tattoo artist put a photo of his pet's stomach on his Planet Ink Facebook page, it stimulated complaints and accusations of animal cruelty.

 

'This is so sad. There is not a dog in the world who deserves to go through this type of cruelty. I feel terrible for any dog in your care. I wish they would take them all away and find safe, loving homes for them,' said one animal lover. 

One Facebook user added: 'Please... do us all a favor... don't ever have children... I would hate to see what you would to your children if you ever got bored with them in the house.'

Another commenter posted: 'Receiving a tattoo requires consent. Your dog cannot consent. Please be respectful to those who cannot consent. Be respectful to your dog.'

Justification: Rodriguez said the tattoo can be used for identification and compares it to branding farm animals.

Justification: Rodriguez said the tattoo can be used for identification and compares it to branding farm animals.

An angrier person said: 'I hope that you rot in hell for the torture you made that dog endure.. you are a sick creature.. and a cruel human.. no better than someone who makes their dogs fight!!'

But Rodriguez told WXII12 that he didn't see a problem with his actions.

'What do they do when they brand animals and tattoo horses on their ear and brand their cow? You’re not abusing them. You’re just protecting them so they don’t get lost,' Rodriguez said.

'If you go on Google and type up dog tattoos, you'll get a thousand images of dogs tattooed. This has been going on for years,' the man added said.

On Facebook he responded with: 'Here is the final result for you haters out there... Animal control came looked at my beautiful dog and left.... wow... what a waste of tax payers money... so im still gonna tattoo my dogs when ever i feel like it... good try haters thanks for all the advertisement.'

No criminal charges have been filed in this case but investigations are continuing.

The local health department has since issued Rodriguez a cease and desist order. This requires that he stops tattooing until he receives proper zoning permits.

Tattoo
Tattoo

The tattoo artist (right) claims his dog didn't suffer during the process of getting the ink done (left). She 'didn’t feel anything,' Rodriguez said

Dr. Ken Wheeler, an investigator with the state veterinary medical board, explained to WXII12 that tattooing a pet is not illegal unless it can be construed as animal cruelty.

The definition of cruelty in this case takes in the dog feeling pain, or being hurt or maimed.  Rodriguez maintains that the dog was asleep the whole time.

His opponents are raising concerns about the legal use of anesthetics.

by on Mar. 31, 2013 at 7:46 AM
Replies (121-130):
DestinyHLewis
by Destiny on Apr. 1, 2013 at 9:19 AM


It takes two seconds to insert a microchip. This dog was tattooed. Considering you have tats, I am sure you can figure out the difference. 

Quoting kaylamom2004:

How is it any different than inserting a micro chip into the dog? It's not.



kaylamom2004
by Bronze Member on Apr. 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM

 Yes. And I still don't see the problem.


Quoting DestinyHLewis:

 

It takes two seconds to insert a microchip. This dog was tattooed. Considering you have tats, I am sure you can figure out the difference. 

Quoting kaylamom2004:

How is it any different than inserting a micro chip into the dog? It's not.

 

DestinyHLewis
by Destiny on Apr. 1, 2013 at 3:25 PM


Okay. Here is the difference I see. A. Microchips are placed to make sure they can find owners and keep a pet safe, not for vanity or pleasure. B. Tattoos hurt. Duh. Not just for a second either. There is no reason for a dog to be tattooed other than an owners own desires of vanity or pleasure. At is the difference. An owner that sees a dog as an object to with as he pleases, and those who value the pet as a family member and a creature. We are not talking a 2 second brand on his ear like a cow or pig might get. It's a tat. No reason or purpose, just a selfish human behind the act. 

Quoting kaylamom2004:

 Yes. And I still don't see the problem.


Quoting DestinyHLewis:


It takes two seconds to insert a microchip. This dog was tattooed. Considering you have tats, I am sure you can figure out the difference. 

Quoting kaylamom2004:

How is it any different than inserting a micro chip into the dog? It's not.




EireLass
by Ruby Member on Apr. 1, 2013 at 3:29 PM

You've only ever had your own pet dog, right? You've never really been involved in the working dog, sporting dog, show dog, etc, world have you?

Quoting DestinyHLewis:

Okay. Here is the difference I see. A. Microchips are placed to make sure they can find owners and keep a pet safe, not for vanity or pleasure. B. Tattoos hurt. Duh. Not just for a second either. There is no reason for a dog to be tattooed other than an owners own desires of vanity or pleasure. At is the difference. An owner that sees a dog as an object to with as he pleases, and those who value the pet as a family member and a creature. We are not talking a 2 second brand on his ear like a cow or pig might get. It's a tat. No reason or purpose, just a selfish human behind the act. 

Quoting kaylamom2004:

 Yes. And I still don't see the problem.

Quoting DestinyHLewis:

It takes two seconds to insert a microchip. This dog was tattooed. Considering you have tats, I am sure you can figure out the difference. 

Quoting kaylamom2004:

How is it any different than inserting a micro chip into the dog? It's not.


EireLass
by Ruby Member on Apr. 1, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Alot of dogs are tattooed. Microchips move, and not all readers read the same microchip. There are so many companies that make them, if you're dog gets lost, you can only hope who finds them has a reader that is conducive to the type you put in.

Quoting DestinyHLewis:

It takes two seconds to insert a microchip. This dog was tattooed. Considering you have tats, I am sure you can figure out the difference. 

Quoting kaylamom2004:

How is it any different than inserting a micro chip into the dog? It's not.


DragonMother10
by on Apr. 1, 2013 at 3:39 PM
I find it funny people say "The dog can't give its consent." I am against animal cruelty, have donated to ASPCA and I don't think this is cruelty. I would find it cruel if he had done it without anesthesia and an unsterlized needle. I am sure he has talked with vets and done research prior to tattooing his dog.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
OHgirlinCA
by Platinum Member on Apr. 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM

 I don't think it's ok to tattoo an animal just for the hell of it. 

DestinyHLewis
by Destiny on Apr. 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM


The tattoos of the type you speak of are not what we are talking about. But you knew that. 

Quoting EireLass:

Alot of dogs are tattooed. Microchips move, and not all readers read the same microchip. There are so many companies that make them, if you're dog gets lost, you can only hope who finds them has a reader that is conducive to the type you put in.

Quoting DestinyHLewis:

It takes two seconds to insert a microchip. This dog was tattooed. Considering you have tats, I am sure you can figure out the difference. 

Quoting kaylamom2004:

How is it any different than inserting a micro chip into the dog? It's not.




Ms.KitKat
by Platinum Member on Apr. 1, 2013 at 4:37 PM

 This was not done to identify the dog. Give me a break. That is such a pathetic excuse.

This was cruel. And un-necessary. He tatted his dog because he thinks it is cool; not for safety. If it was fior safety, there are other more humane avenues.

and on a side note- he did a pretty lousy job for a tattoo artist.

kaylamom2004
by Bronze Member on Apr. 2, 2013 at 8:09 AM

 A microchip can be removed as easily as it is inserted. Tell me how easy it is to remove a tattoo. And no, a tattoo hurts for a brief moment. And even then, only in certain areas near bone.

Again. I see no problem with this. Tattoos are NOT about vanity. Apparently, YOU don't have any (and if you do it was to be "one of the cool kids".)


Quoting DestinyHLewis:

 

Okay. Here is the difference I see. A. Microchips are placed to make sure they can find owners and keep a pet safe, not for vanity or pleasure. B. Tattoos hurt. Duh. Not just for a second either. There is no reason for a dog to be tattooed other than an owners own desires of vanity or pleasure. At is the difference. An owner that sees a dog as an object to with as he pleases, and those who value the pet as a family member and a creature. We are not talking a 2 second brand on his ear like a cow or pig might get. It's a tat. No reason or purpose, just a selfish human behind the act. 

Quoting kaylamom2004:

 Yes. And I still don't see the problem.

 

Quoting DestinyHLewis:

 

It takes two seconds to insert a microchip. This dog was tattooed. Considering you have tats, I am sure you can figure out the difference. 

Quoting kaylamom2004:

How is it any different than inserting a micro chip into the dog? It's not.

 

 

 


 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN