Man Tattoos Dog for Identification, PETA Passive in Response

North Carolina resident Ernesto Rodriguez wanted to show off his new four-month-old American pit bull, Duchess, by putting up a picture of her on Facebook last Wednesday, April 3.  The picture featured Duchess recovering from getting her ears clipped as well as sporting a new tattoo.

The elaborate ink could be seen on Duchess’ stomach, and Rodriguez boasted about having done it himself. Apparently people were quick to call animal control after seeing the picture, because according to The Huffington Post, a screenshot was taken of a post on Rodriguez’s Facebook which read, “Animal control came looked at my beautiful dog and left…. wow… what a waste of tax payers money… so im [sic] still gonna tattoo my dogs whenever i feel like it… good try haters thanks for all the advertisement.”

Rodriguez says he is an Army veteran, and his job now is a tattoo artist and owner of Planet Ink Tattoo.  So we don’t have to worry about him lacking tattooing experience, but it makes me wonder if he posted the picture purposely to get his name known.  He is being reported on all over the country, and according to CNN, “He certainly has his supporters.”  If someone was in the Stokes County area and in the market for a tattoo, now maybe they’ll go to the guy that put cool tattoos on his dogs.  He did write on his own Facebook page saying “…thanks for all the advertisement.”  Whether that was his agenda or not, it has certainly worked.  CNN affiliate WGHP-TV says after Rodriguez put up the picture of Duchess on the social networking site, he got responses from people all over the country; although I would say people calling him an “animal abuser” are probably unlikely to go see him for their tattooing needs.

Rodriguez claims that after he picked up the puppy from getting her ears clipped, she was under anesthesia so he saw a good opportunity to put a personal tattoo on her for identification, according to the Huffington Post.  He told WXII 12, “I didn’t just plop her on the bed and tattoo her… She was already [under] anesthetic. She was asleep, completely asleep. I even used topical anesthetic, too, on the skin. So she didn’t feel anything.”

He has been under fire from animal rights activists since he posted the picture of his dog. According to the Huffington Post, animal advocate Caleb Scott doesn’t believe Duchess was asleep.  “Usually when you pick up dogs and cats they’re already awake after the procedure,” Scott said in an interview with WGHP. “They don’t usually hand you over a dog that is asleep. On [Rodriguez’s] first Facebook post, he said he was ‘bored and tattooing.’ I think now he’s backpedaling saying he’s identifying it.”  This makes sense to me seeing as in my own experience I’ve never been handed an unconscious cat from the vet after they needed a procedure done.  They’ve always kept them overnight to wait until they wake up and examine the animal and make sure everything is okay since it is known that it can be risky to put an animal under anesthesia.

In a situation like this I would normally look to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for guidance but it’s hard to keep track of where they stand on this one.  According to CNN, PETA wants you to “have dogs microchipped or tattooed through the National Dog Registry.”  But then on The Huffington Post it says, “The National Association of Professional Creative Groomers said temporary dog tattoos first became popular about three years ago, and the trend has increased in popularity since,” adding a side note at the bottom of the page, “CLARIFICATION: Language has been changed to state that temporary dog tattoos have become popular in recent years, not permanent ink ones.”  This leads me to wonder if the previous quote from CNN was misinterpreted, saying tattoo but really meaning temporary tattoo.  People need to be more specific when talking about tattoos.  There’s a big difference between temporary tattoos and permanent ink tattoos.

USA Today writes, “Pet tattoos [are] airbrushed designs most commonly created with a stencil and non-toxic dye especially made for animals,” but then continues to state PETA’s opinion saying, “The national pets rights group PETA says dying a pet’s fur can cause stress and lead to complications or allergic reactions that endanger the animal’s life. They also say giving a pet a tattoo… is insensitive to an animal’s dignity.”  It’s easy to see where my confusion comes from. Everyone seems to be getting a different impression on what PETA thinks on the matter of animal tattooing. It makes no sense that PETA would be alright with pets getting permanent tattoos if it is for identification purposes, yet be against the act of temporary fur dying using pet-safe dyes.

PETA’s worried about the animal’s dignity?  Then why, I ask, would they be okay with a beautiful four-month-old pitbull puppy having a tattoo on her for the rest of her life that says “Dutches.”  It doesn’t even spell her name right.

I don’t think this man should be allowed to tattoo his dogs.  A tattoo for identity purposes would be one thing, but an elaborate tattoo that takes up half of the stomach of a four-month-old puppy that now has black and red smudged ink on her for the rest of her life is a different case.  I agree with animal advocate Scott, I think Rodriguez tattooed his dogs for fun, put up a picture on Facebook for publicity and when he realized he might get in trouble for animal cruelty he claimed it was to identify the dog if it ever got lost.  What’s done is done, and the tattooed dogs appear as happy as ever in the interview with WGHT, but his previous statement saying “…so im [sic] still gonna tattoo my dogs whenever i feel like it…” leaves me worried.  To me, this says he plans on doing more tattoos on them. Will he claim they are for identification purposes too?  Will he try to administer anesthetic himself? When is it too much? Dogs cannot give consent, so they should be left tattoo-less.