Decrotive tattoos on pets

Veterinary School Application Advising Ad
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
M

MidnightMoon

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Fayetteville, NC
  1. Pre-Veterinary
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I was looking up cool tattoos and I came across an image of a dog with a Hello Kitty tattoo. I was very surprised and I started looking up more pets with tattoos. Apparently the pets are under anesthesia during the process but I was thinking as a future vet Id put that on the list of things I wouldnt do. What do you guys think?

Heres the Hello Kitty Dog
http://kuyachristian.tumblr.com/post/288168410/hello-kitty-hello-kitty-tattoo-for-your-dog

And one on Cats in Russia
http://www.petside.com/petsideblog/2010/01/tattoos-on-pets-fashionable-or.php
 
It would depend on the motivation of the owner. I know that some pets get tattooed for identification in case they get lost. But I wouldn't support tattooing a pet purely for the owner's aesthetic desires. Putting them through the risks of anesthesia for something that's completely unnecessary is irresponsible.

How many vets even have the equipment to do tattooing?
 
I would only do it as an ID method - IE, racehorses who have lip tattoos, or dogs with ear tattoos.

For aesthetic reasons, no way. I don't think it's right to project that onto your animal. If you want a tattoo, get one yourself!
 
Yeah Im pretty okay with ID marks and with the tattoos they put on some spay/neuture patients so they dont get done again but the decrative ones are just stupid.
 
I'm fine with identification tattoos. I would definitely not anesthetize an animal solely for a decorative tattoo. However, if someone really wanted one and I had staff comfortable with doing it while they were already anesthetized for an elective procedure like s/n or a dental, I'd be okay with it. The risk would be essentially nonexistent and any soreness should be more than managed by pain meds for the primary procedure. I can't say I really like the idea, but under the above circumstances I also don't see any harm. The animal is not going to care one way or another if he has a tattoo.
 
Neither tattooing nor piercing an animal for aesthetic reasons are ethical under ANY circumstances. No exception. This is even worse than tail docking and ear cropping, because at least those alterations actually served a purpose in working dogs.

Even one of the premiere body modification communities, the Body Modification Ezine, does not condone this practice.

BME does not condone the torture and abuse of animals in any way. These pictures are presented for documentary purposes only and WE DO NOT RECOMMEND OR SUGGEST PIERCING OR OTHERWISE MODIFYING ANIMALS IN ANY WAY!
Click to expand...
There was a case in PA where a woman was arrested for piercing three cats and attempting to sell them as "gothic kitties." She was charged with animal cruelty. If that is considered animal cruelty, then so should tattooing, and both the owner and the veterinarian who consented to perform the procedure should have animal cruelty charges placed upon them.

This is one of the few times where I agree with the animal rights nuts.

Besides, do you know how long it takes even to do small tattoos? The medical risks of being under anesthesia for the primary procedure followed by an hour or 2 for the elective tattoo would be medically unethical in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Good point about the time. I've never had a tattoo and didn't think about that. For some silly reason I was thinking it was a 5 minute thing. With piercings you also have the risk associated with the ear/nose/whatever ring itself (getting caught and tearing tissue), so that is reason enough to oppose it right there.
 
I agree with the ID idea. Also, the shelter my parents got their dog from tattoos females after they are spayed so that way they know the procedure has already been done if they get them back without ID.

The lower one of the Russian cats article (white cat, sphinx tattoo)looks suspiciously like a photoshop job though.
 
PrimalMU is right - even my smallest tattoo, about 2 inches, took an hour. And they HURT, and then they ITCH, and it takes weeks for them to fully heal. Not to mention the added risk of infection if they are not properly cared for, or if you scratch at them (which I'm pretty sure a dog or cat would do).

The unethical problems don't stop there, but I won't get into my opinions about free will and permanent body modification.
 
Not that I at all condone decorative tattooing of animals, but some tattoos don't take that long. My friend had one done, about the size of a quarter and very simple, and it took maybe 15 minutes.

We discussed tattoo ID in my ethics course, and one thing that was brought up is that a lot of people will tattoo a dog's ear. If the dog is stolen, it's quite easy to remove that particular form of "permanent" ID, and it has been done. And how would anyone know for sure if the dog didn't get into a fight? IMHO, there are better ways of IDing a dog, but if you're going to tattoo an animal, it should be for ID purposes only.
 
I think tattooing is important in vet med--as it applies to quickly identifying spay-sites or providing ID (I think most would agree that a quick tattoo at the end of a spay is better than a second, unnecessary opening, only to find that the animal has already been spayed... and Thoroughbred rules are complicated and weird, right?) I am surprised (and somewhat disappointed) to see this particular case, in which a vet was willing to allow a client to tattoo an animal for "aesthetic reasons." I guess I'm glad to have seen this (so thanks MidnightMoon), but I'm totally shocked that a professional would allow this.

I start vet school in the fall (so I'm not a vet, let alone a vet student, yet), but my policy is: I will perform a crop or dock (or aesthetic tattoo), when a dog comes in and asks for it. I think this is totally ridiculous, and animal cruelty.

[Sorry I didn't have much to contribute to the thread. But I felt compelled to agree with you...]
 
GSDgirl said:
I start vet school in the fall (so I'm not a vet, let alone a vet student, yet), but my policy is: I will perform a crop or dock. . . when a dog comes in and asks for it. I think this is totally ridiculous, and animal cruelty.
Click to expand...

Hopefully you will also do them if the dog is actually going to be a working dog. Dogs that would NEED these procedures are few and far between nowadays, but I'm sure they do exist, and in such cases it would be appropriate to do them.

That's how I feel, anyway.
 
PrimalMU said:
Hopefully you will also do them if the dog is actually going to be a working dog. Dogs that would NEED these procedures are few and far between nowadays, but I'm sure they do exist, and in such cases it would be appropriate to do them.

That's how I feel, anyway.
Click to expand...

Definitely, if I felt a client had a compelling (and practical/medical) need for a crop or dock, I would perform it. But, I think in most cases, people have a pure-bred dog and crop/dock for cosmetic reasons, because they are trying to conform to a "breed standard." Personally, I don't see the purpose in docking tails--even in working breeds. I live in Wyoming, and know plenty-a-working-Blue Heeler. Traditionally, the tail is docked. But have you ever watched a Heeler working? The handful of Heelers I know (which have their tails...) use their them as a rudder when turning and stopping. I've never seen a Heeler get their tail stepped on, so I don't see the purpose. Maybe their is a practical reason (feel free to enlighten me, I'm not trying to start an argument, or tell you what's right and wrong), but I've never seen a case of crop/dock that is (preventably) necessary, because I've never seen a working dog suffer from having in-tact ears or tails.
 
Yeah, it's a strange practice. Tattoo for identification is fine, they're usually small and done for "useful" reasons. However, for the owner's aesthetic appeal, it's plain absurd. I have no problem with decorating, but most animals don't like being in those stupid costumes people put on at halloween, let alone getting a tattoo done, for the owner basically, just because the owner doesn't want to take ink to their own skin.

However, I think it is justified for some animals. Like for some musician animals, trying to promote their own bands. I know this one rabbit from back home was trying to promote his "rock star" image for the rabbit's metalcore band while trying to get signed on a label, etc. To look more hardcore the rabbit went and got some really brutal tattoo sleeves done (picture of a bloody samurai, skull with snakes, etc.) The girl I know who owned the rabbit didn't really approve but like, the rabbit was over 18 in rabbit years, went to the tattoo shop when the girl was at work, no real way she could have stopped it. Plus, it made the rabbit really happy so it worked out in the end. And like, I've only talked to a few animals with tats but the general consensus is that arm band tattoos and crosses on shoulders of animals looks really stupid too.

In the end, my opinion is that if the animal wants the tattoo, and is old enough (or with animals birth-mother's consent, the pet owner's consent is NOT needed) then a tattoo is fine. But if the owner takes the pet into the tattoo shop and forces the animal to get the tattoo solely for aesthetic appeal then it's very, very wrong.
 
Whyevernot55 said:
PrimalMU is right - even my smallest tattoo, about 2 inches, took an hour. And they HURT, and then they ITCH, and it takes weeks for them to fully heal. Not to mention the added risk of infection if they are not properly cared for, or if you scratch at them (which I'm pretty sure a dog or cat would do).

The unethical problems don't stop there, but I won't get into my opinions about free will and permanent body modification.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you guys had your tatts done but both of mine took less then 20 mins from start to finish. No pain after at all and very minimal pain during but the risk for infection would worry me in an animal. They're both small (slightly larger then a quarter) and all black, simple design. I would think something like the Hello Kitty tattoo would take no more then 25-30 mins max and that's generous considering it's an extremely simple outline essentially. The cat ones would take much longer for sure!

In any case, this is ridiculous. I can't believe people would do that to their pets (especially the cats! 😱). I can't see anyway a vet could spin that as 'ethical'....
 
UM2014 said:
Not sure where you guys had your tatts done but both of mine took less then 20 mins from start to finish. No pain after at all and very minimal pain during but the risk for infection would worry me in an animal. They're both small (slightly larger then a quarter) and all black, simple design. I would think something like the Hello Kitty tattoo would take no more then 25-30 mins max and that's generous considering it's an extremely simple outline essentially. The cat ones would take much longer for sure!

In any case, this is ridiculous. I can't believe people would do that to their pets (especially the cats! 😱). I can't see anyway a vet could spin that as 'ethical'....
Click to expand...

Well, most of mine are larger, and my small one was extremely intricately detailed, so I may be different.
But I agree, it's unethical to do it to an animal for anything other than ID purposes.
 
mitchlucker said:
However, I think it is justified for some animals. Like for some musician animals, trying to promote their own bands. I know this one rabbit from back home was trying to promote his "rock star" image for the rabbit's metalcore band while trying to get signed on a label, etc. To look more hardcore the rabbit went and got some really brutal tattoo sleeves done (picture of a bloody samurai, skull with snakes, etc.) The girl I know who owned the rabbit didn't really approve but like, the rabbit was over 18 in rabbit years, went to the tattoo shop when the girl was at work, no real way she could have stopped it. Plus, it made the rabbit really happy so it worked out in the end. And like, I've only talked to a few animals with tats but the general consensus is that arm band tattoos and crosses on shoulders of animals looks really stupid too.

In the end, my opinion is that if the animal wants the tattoo, and is old enough (or with animals birth-mother's consent, the pet owner's consent is NOT needed) then a tattoo is fine. But if the owner takes the pet into the tattoo shop and forces the animal to get the tattoo solely for aesthetic appeal then it's very, very wrong.
Click to expand...

:laugh:
 
I remember reading somewhere that the hello kitty dog's tattoo was quickly done by the owner after the spay instead of the usual lines and dots. I don't have a problem with that. The dog was already out and it's way better than the hideous tattoos I usually give the pets. Those kitty tattoos almost look fake, but if they're real, I think are pretty pathetic. Poor kitties.

The tattoos on the dogs and cats in France were pretty extensive. About 10 numbers and letters on the belly or ear - I thought it was really a pretty decent way to keep the animals identified. This was before microchips were really prevalent. They've probably gone over to that by now.
 
luplodw said:
Ughhhh the one with the pierced nipples is the worst. It must get caught on everything
Click to expand...

I know!!! that and also the big loop on the ear. i can't imagine the first time when the cat scratched it's ear with their back paws and pulled it hard 🙁 And the whole body tattoos?? 😡
 
RunTheWorld said:
I'm no expert, but the one with the big earring is definitely just a bad photoshop. Also, the ones with the white backgrounds look a little too animated to be real. But unfortunately that video with the egyptian tattoo is definitely real. I can't believe a vet would allow that!
Click to expand...

yea some of the pics def didnt look real they looked animated/photoshopped with the bright colors and no blemishes (kind of like when my asian friends get professional photos done in china and they look like a super model compared to real life lol) but then with the videos and some real life pictures i think most of them are true and they just wanted the cats to look like models in some pics haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
SDN Article: Serving Pets and Country: A Conversation with Army Veterinarian Captain Haley Davis, DVM
Replies
0
Views
359
Alexander Salas
A
U
Advice on moving across the country with multiple pets?
Replies
18
Views
5K
Abnerrs
Abnerrs
hazysea
Advice on Experience!
Replies
24
Views
3K
Angelo84
A
Mr.Smile12
RVC on Probation (please confirm)
Replies
8
Views
3K
starryradiowaves
starryradiowaves
Mr.Smile12
AAVMC statement on HR 1 BBB (sent to applicants, shared with advisors)
Replies
0
Views
848
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top Bottom