Posted on 04/25/2013 4:15:03 PM PDT by Daffynition
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
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
..and perhaps smart enuf not to question a Marine about his tatt. [I know I wouldn’t] ;D
LOL....his ears are probably still ringing. :)
And to whom much is given, much is expected... those in leadership have responsibility to those in their care... it’s about being a good steward of not only creation, but of all the blessings God has given us... even our pets! :)
How do you spell *Dutchess* in Spanish?
I found la duquesa and duchess.......I dunno.
Some people are weird.
[and not in a good way]
Apparently.
Hard to not make a judgement, call, innit?
The article says her name is Duchess and the tattoo says “Dutches”.
Ain’t even gonna try and puzzle that one out.
I don’t know whether that’s a Photoshop, but about 15 years ago a cartoonist buddy o* mine sent me about 100 cartoon ideas he was working on : One o* them was a Biker type with studded vest, etc. walking out o* a tattoo parlor, bearing all kinds o* tattoos and piercings on his ears, cheeks, nose. He carries a tiny dog on one arm, the little mutt ALSO bearing nose rings, ear rings, studs, etc.(”pierced to the max” as he described it. I thought it was perversely hilarious.
Many vets tattoo female dogs who have had their tubes cut. As well, many breeders who enter their dogs into dog shows also tattoo their dogs. I do not quite understand the outrage. If he would not be a tattoo artist then I would understand the outrage.
‘identification tattoo and a chip.’
This is nothing new. Pet tattooing for identification purposes has been going on for some time.
Any man who is more concerned with his dog looking “cool” than the health and well-being of his dog is unworthy of his dog.
Period.
My family is from near there, I’ve seen this dog on local tv news. She’s well cared-for and quite happy. So, her people have poor judgement, do you think she cares? Leave her be, and that means leaving her people be.
It’s the difference in the depth and size of the tattoo.
Pet ID tats don’t hurt the animal and don’t even bleed.
“Real” tats do both.
There’s a huge difference between tatting several shallow digits into your pet’s skin and putting an entire piece of ‘art’ on them.
Look at how swollen up the tat is.
It’s going to [or already has] scab up, peel, scab up and peel again, several times until it’s fully healed.
[and none of that feels particularly great]
It’s ridiculous overkill and the fact that he did on it a “Pit” type dog just shows where his mind is really at.
He’s an egotistical idiot.
On the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) website, the following is posted in the section about implanting a microchip under the skin to protect pets from theft or loss.
"To make doubly sure that their animals are returned if lost or stolen, many caretakers also have their animals tattooed on their inner thigh with an identification number, such as their social security number, in their veterinarian's office or at a tattoo clinic. Unlike microchips, tattoos are visible (as long as the hair over the tattoo is thin or kept shaved or clipped short) and more noticeable to a person or animal shelter that may not have microchip scanning capabilities or knowledge of scanning technology."
Heh, noooo...
I don’t want to set off the tatooed ladies, but the fad has become obsessive self mutilation and abuse. I saw a young man at the beach last week and the poor thing looked like he escaped a circus. It does not surprise me that they progress in their obsession to take their problem out on children and pets.
I’d wager it’s less painful with less consequence than the typical, entirely aesthetic modifications to which most Dobermans are subjected.
Never had one so much as scratch at them.
And they serve an functional purpose along with health benefits.
They’re extremely prone to yeast infections in their ears when uncropped.
Been there, done that.
Amputation is less painful than an ill-advised tattoo?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.