• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Animal Cruelty or Art Form?

dionythicus

dionythicus

Kiss My Hearse
Animal abuse. Plain and simple.

I understand tattooing a number in a pets ear for identification if lost but this is purely cosmetic with no mundane purpose.
 
I'm with you, but anymore people go to extraordinary lengths to be "unique" or "creative" "original" or "look how much money I have"...
 
Wow. That is absolutely disgusting. I can't imagine ever doing that to one of my cats with or without anesthesia. I agree completely that still hurts even after the fact. One of mine was sore for at least 3-4 days after getting it done. I can't imagine a big piece like that. :headbang:
 
I don't agree with tattooing an animal for cosmetic purposes...unless said animal understands english and gives their consent.

That said I also don't agree with declawing cats, and there is a lot of controversy on that.
 
In the days before microchipping, we used to tattoo our social security numbers on the insides of our dogs' legs as ID. (Because you can cut the ears off!) Vets had access to the registry that could track you down. That was before the Internet and identity theft.

But you're right, animals shouldn't be pierced or tattooed for aesthetic purposes.
 
I don't agree with it... but...

The minute you start saying what people can and cannot do with their pets, bad things happen.

It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, isn't it? Where can the line be drawn?

What is the difference between tattooing the cat and cropping a Doberman or Boxers ears?
 
How revolting. I wonder why people think this is okay? Not only is the healing process painful, there is always risk of infection, too. And granted, this cat is hairless, but that probably doesn't stop the animal from doing what cats do - which is bathe and I'm fairly certain we all know how dirty cat mouths are! So now there is risk of infection not just from the air or environment, but also from the cat itself. Awesome. And all for what? So some person can say 'hey, look at my cat's tattoo..'

This isn't to say that ALL animal tattooing is worthless. One of our dogs has the inside of his ear tattooed by the breeder to identify him as 1) one of her line and 2) a puppy in a specified litter by a specified male and female. All of this is accomplished with 'R5W' on the inside of his right ear. Most working dogs have tattoos, but they are for identification (since these dogs are generally worth over a thousand dollars) and NOT recreational in the least.
 
Hypancistrus said:
I don't agree with it... but...

The minute you start saying what people can and cannot do with their pets, bad things happen.

It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, isn't it? Where can the line be drawn?

What is the difference between tattooing the cat and cropping a Doberman or Boxers ears?
Click to expand...

My opinion...I don't agree with tail docking or ear cropping except in cases of utilitarian value. I don't think there are quite as many utilitarian reasons to crop ears these days...though tail docking in some species of animal can have it's uses. Just my opinion of course.
 
It's not right. Hurting an animal for cosmetic purposes is stupid. While I hate to admit that I LOVE the way cropped ears and tails look on dogs, I don't condone it and would never get it done to my animal. Cropping a dogs ears/tail is pretty much the same as tattooing a cat, once you think about it.
 
VickyChaiTea said:
While I hate to admit that I LOVE the way cropped ears and tails look on dogs, I don't condone it and would never get it done to my animal.
Click to expand...
Aside from whether I condone or disprove of cropping, I personally find the look dreadful. If I see a picture of a dog with it's ears/tail as a puppy, and see later photos without, I always wonder what caused someone to do it.
 
Not something I would personally do to any animal, but not exactly cruelty IMO. Sure tatoos have pain associated with while being done, but the cat is put to sleep. Of course they are tender for a day or two after, but again if you clip a nail too short thats tender to for a day or two as well. While there is a reason to clip nail, spay/neuter, and even dock a dog if for show purposes theres no reason to tattoo a cat, but its still not cruelty and more just really stupid.
 
I think it's a lot less bad than ear cropping, which was my first thought upon reading the article.

I've had a lot of tattoos, and they're a little tender. But they never hurt anywhere close to as bad as lying on a newly pierced ear, and a newly pierced ear, I'm sure, doesn't hurt nearly as bad as having the pinna cut off.
 
On the subject of tattoos, they also do it to fish. Hearts, I LOVE YOU, Smilies, coloring etc. Branding is a form of marking as well. Race horses have their upper inside lip tattooed with id numbers. Ferrets have tattoos in their ears. And I always flinch when I see ear cropping and declawing. I'm glad I'm not a pet!
Terri
 
crackerhead said:
On the subject of tattoos, they also do it to fish. Hearts, I LOVE YOU, Smilies, coloring etc.
Click to expand...

See with fish it's a more clear case to me. The survival rate of tattooed fish is abyssmal, because they are held out of water quite often during the process and water exacerbates rates of infection. In that case, I think it's cruel. I don't condone it, I speak out against it.

I am just not a fan of "banning" things... it starts a slippery slope.
 
Hypancistrus said:
See with fish it's a more clear case to me. The survival rate of tattooed fish is abyssmal, because they are held out of water quite often during the process and water exacerbates rates of infection. In that case, I think it's cruel. I don't condone it, I speak out against it.

I am just not a fan of "banning" things... it starts a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

I concur 100%. Banning assumes an omnipotent voice deciding right and wrong. And the last time I checked that source didn't exist among us.
I like having choices.

Terri
 
While I understand where you guys are coming from, there obviously has to be a line somewhere. The question is on what side of the line do these examples fall. I think they are fence sitters, but I'm not going to say they definitely should or shouldn't be 'banned', because I'd have to think about it some more.
 
Choices are great and allowing someone to determine what is best despite our own feelings is plain wrong within reason. This is a fence sitter and not something I condone or would do for no reason, but I don't see this becoming the next big trend thank god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top