Tattooing your pets?

I think the shelter I work with found an older dog with a number tattoo and could not trace it. The numbers were clear, yes, but I believe it wasn't registered with any major dog tattoo companies. I don't really see the point, then?

If its not to show off why worry about how it looks?

I just think ok-ing stuff like tattoos for appearance seems kind of wrong. I don't know any dog that would willingly just sit there for that. It's loud and uncomfortable.

Are we going to let people get their dogs piercings? What about other traditionally human body modifications under the guise of 'IDing' them?

There is already issues with people treating their pets as accessories why support something that is just going to reinforce those views?

My dogs all have CKC breeder ID tattoos that they all got before leaving their breeders' homes. Those kinds of tattoos I don't have a problem with, and I also don't have a problem with somebody getting a small design or something tattooed on their pet while they are also have an ID tattoo done while put under. The dog is already being tattooed anyway, so why not get a little something extra if you wanted. Not that I would do it, but I know people who have, and don't see anything wrong with it. It might even be a good way to prove that the dog is undoubtedly yours.

But, I do not believe in tattooing a pet to the extent that some of those pictures show. And I also don't believe in putting an animal under just for a tattoo... or tattooing them wide awake and feeling everything, because that would be totally unfair to a dog/cat. I don't know what getting a tattoo feels like, as I don't have one, but I can't imagine it's the most comfortable thing in the world to have to sit through.

I don't know if people do this with dogs, but I know horse people will do 'eyeliner' tattoos on their paint horses. The idea is that it's suppose to help protect the sensitive skin next to the eye from the sun. I don't personally know anyone that has had it done so I don't know if it actually works.


The point is that while I would not tattoo an animal for my own amusement, I would consider doing it for identification or medical reasons.

Someone already brought up the spaying, neutering, and docking of tails and cropping of ears. If it's necessary, why does it have to be pretty? Just wack the ears and be done with it.

I'm just of the opinion that if it's going to be done, better make the best of it. You can say that for anything we already do for our dogs. Collars, tags, various remedies to get rid of speuter scars, paying a lot of money for a good, nicer crop than any vet who can wack ears, grooming, heat panties, etc, etc.

Some of them are temporary, some aren't. Some are more important than others. But everything we do for our pets, we take to some "pretty" extreme or another, not "just" out of necessity. But if a simple tattoo can be used to ID a pet, doesn't interfere with health, and could be a lower risk than some spay surgeries...what's the problem, really? There's far more important things to get hung up about.

Tattooing as a means of identification, go for it. I can't imagine being opposed to that. My dog is tattooed and I had my rabbits tattooed.

As far as tattooing designs on your animal for aesthetic reasons, I don't like it. I dont' like the way it looks and I don't think it's particularly nice to poke a hairless cat with a needle over its entire body. But, to each his own. I wouldn't want it to be illegal.

There are reasons to spay and neuter. And as for the ears and tail I don't see them as something that needs to be done either but that's a different argument.

I am just against using your dog as a fashion accessory. Not against tattoos in general but if you want a nice looking one get it for yourself not your dog.

Tattooing for ID purposes isn't really effective either. One of my dogs and both of my cats had ear tattoos done by the HS when they were speutered. At 5-6 years old, they're hardly legible and they aren't in any database. As such, they're also microchipped.

Once we had a Samoyed show up as a stray. She was old and was tattooed but not chipped. We never found her owner or breeder because the tattoo was illegible.

OT but thought I should bring up that point.

I really am having a hard time figuring out why docking or cropping are different. I mean a full body tattoo probably does involve a nice amount of pain and is extreme, but a smallish tattoo, probably less healing time and soreness that a crop or dock.

Honestly, I do not like any alteration done surgically for looks but I dont know how unethical it is either

I don’t see it as a different argument.
A show crop on a dane or dobe is 100% owner aesthetics. Does nothing for the dog.
Both require general anesthesia.

How is tattooing your dog any different than cropping?

Not that it should matter, but FTR, none of my danes are cropped, and none of my dogs are tattooed.

I meant different topic since this was mainly about tattoos. I personally think they are unnecessary too.

I could see tattooing an eyelid or nose for sun protection. And if the dog/cat is under anyway, a small tattoo for ID purposes that isn't going to cause a lot of issues to heal - heck had a dobe years ago and because I was a student volunteer there, they let me put his name and a bone in one ear, and the vet tattoo in the other.

But also have had tattoo misreads, so my guys are now microchipped.

Once upon a time, a long time ago I was an avid member on bmezine... then I became a dog addict. I still have most of my mods.. but I spend more time places like here. This topic has come up here before, but in past it was from pics off of bme. In that case, bme made it clear they were documenting what people had done, and were not endorsing it. In some cases there were stories to go with pics. There were pets with piercings and ink.

Pics that had accompanying stories, it was generally either people who worked at a vet clinic in some capacity and had been let play while an animal was out, or it was a tattoo artist that had sedated their own pet.. in some cases in not so legit ways..

Back then though most of the ink was simpler designs, few full bodysuit ideas. I went looking for the gallery but as the site has changed hands in the past few years, I don't see it now.

That can sometimes backfire, especially with an animal with 'breed-ability'. Seems valuable, can likely make puppies. They can and do hack off ears for ID purposes to stop the ability to ID animals. If you are going to tattoo, inner thigh seems to be the way to go.

Horse thread on tattooing eyeliner. A lot of people don't think it does much. A handful do, and put their horses out regularly to redo it as it fades out.

http://www.horsegroomingsupplies.co...-horse-eyeliner-do-you-think-pics-479945.html

Well, if you have a tattooed dog, you do have to do a bit of legwork yourself, or else the tattoo is pretty useless (or just links back to your dog's breeder). Finn's tattoo registered with the Humane Society and in a tattoo database that veterinarians can access. It also helps that his is very legible. Will it actually work? I wouldn't know because I thankfully have never lost him, and he always has his tags on too. But I know a number of lost dogs found through rescues who have been reunited with their families based on a tattoo alone.

I know I agree with tattoos for aesthetics on animals being unethical. I'm indifferent on ID tattoos. Finn has one, I didn't disagree with his breeder doing so, but whether a breeder tattooed or not would be meh to me. I wouldn't do it myself.

Piercings I would have to lean towards a 'not acceptable'. It would be far too easy for an animal to get the piercing caught on something and rip it out.

I've seen various pics of pierced fish and I really don't agree with that either. Infection kills fish very quickly. And then people aren't really going to sedate or get it done professionally.



I also do not support dyed/tattooed fish. It's just an icky procedure that kills the majority of them, for profit.

Except she said herself that the tattoo would just be something that she thought of -- wouldn't be registered/traceable.

Tattooing a dog isn't exactly a new thing -- a shelter worker isn't going to see a flower in a dogs ear (for example) and think "oh, this is a beloved pet!"

Excuse me? Where did I say that? I said it would specifically be FOR ID purposes. I crossed off things like phone numbers and addresses because those specific things can change and then it would be useless.

Yes, it would be something that I thought of...that would be easily traced.

That second fish had a story if I remember. Had been previously gotten with a fish hook and was rescued. Healed with a hole. They put the jewelry in, snapped a pic, removed it and the fish lived in non harassed peace in a fish tank from then on.

Nope, not okay with this.

An ID tattoo.... okay sure although I wouldn't personally do that.
But putting a design on your dog? Seriously? I don't care if it's small. That just seems... ugh I don't even have words for it. If you like how a tattoo looks get one on YOURSELF, don't subject your pet to it. It's a dog. Not an accessory.

For the record no I don't like cropping or docking either. Yeah I own a docked breed but if I had the choice, Juno would have her tail.

I am pro crop and pro dock however never in a million years would I support tattooing an animal, besides id purposes like they do for horses. Being said that, I only support docking when they are tiny still, I see it as when a nurse pierce a baby's ear, it is done as newborn and you don't really remember the 'pain'.