So, in case you didn’t follow the link and read the story,
the very brief version is that this guy, who is a professional tattoo artist,
tattooed his dog while the dog was under sedation at the vet’s office, after
the dog had surgery.
A lot of people are pissed, “outraged” according to the
articles I’ve read, and calling it “animal cruelty”.
I’m against it, but I’m not outraged. I don’t think it was
an act of intentional cruelty. I don’t think there were any bad intentions.
The first thing that made me cringe was the idea of
extending the time the dog was under anesthesia. No way! That’s a chance I
would not be willing to take. That is my biggest problem with this.
Others have mentioned the discomfort of a healing tattoo and
the risk of infection. I agree that those are also good reasons not to do it.
When it comes to being outraged and calling it cruelty, I
don’t think it compares to practices such as tail docking of dogs and declawing
cats, which is are everyday occurrences, and completely unacceptable in my
book. A tattoo does not compare to an amputation.
I would say it’s closer to the level of neuticles (fake
balls for neutered dogs, in case you’re not familiar). But, neuticles are probably
worse because that involves having a foreign object surgically implanted in your
body, and all of the risks and potential discomfort involved. So, I find the
idea of neuticles humorous, but the reality of them is unacceptable.
Do I think dogs should get tattoos? Absolutely not! The
risks, and potential discomfort cannot be justified.
What do you think? Was this really animal cruelty, or just a
really bad judgment call?
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment