Tattoo artist sparks fury by inking his dog

[thedutchiedutch]

A Brooklyn tattoo artist has been criticized by animal rights groups after he inked a design on his dog while it was sedated at the vet.

Mistah Metro, who works for NY Ink star Chris Torres, posted an image of his dog on Instagram, showing the animal still under sedation after having surgery.

But his tattoo has led to backlash online, with animal lovers condemning Mistah Metro for marking the dog for his own amusement.

Link to full article : http://www.dailymail...-activists.html

Edited March 6, 2014 by thedutchiedutch

[thedutchiedutch]

A Brooklyn tattoo artist has been criticized by animal rights groups after he inked a design on his dog while it was sedated at the vet.

Mistah Metro, who works for NY Ink star Chris Torres, posted an image of his dog on Instagram, showing the animal still under sedation after having surgery.

But his tattoo has led to backlash online, with animal lovers condemning Mistah Metro for marking the dog for his own amusement.

Link to full article : http://www.dailymail...-activists.html

The article says "But his tattoo has led to backlash online, with animal lovers condemning Mistah Metro for marking the dog for his own amusement."

Now don't we breed dogs for our own amusement and shape their tails, ears, coat etc for our own amusement ? What is the difference here.

[Still Waters]

Mistah Metro, who works for NY Ink star Chris Torres, posted an image of his dog on Instagram, showing the animal still under sedation after having surgery.

Link to full article : http://www.dailymail...-activists.html

Well it seems Chris Torres isn't too happy about this either.

Chris Torres, however, wants the public to know that neither he nor his shop had anything to do with the controversial inking, which in some circles could be considered animal cruelty.

http://gothamist.com...dog_tattoos.php

[thedutchiedutch]

Well it seems Chris Torres isn't too happy about this either.

http://gothamist.com...dog_tattoos.php

It's free advertising for Chris

[seaturtlehorsesnake]

The article says "But his tattoo has led to backlash online, with animal lovers condemning Mistah Metro for marking the dog for his own amusement."

Now don't we breed dogs for our own amusement and shape their tails, ears, coat etc for our own amusement ? What is the difference here.

well, it depends on who you ask, of course. but there are some animal rights activists who do consider things like tail and ear docking animal cruelty.

for my own part, i don't think that any animal should be considered "existing for our amusement"*. that's the kind of slippery slope that leads to cruelty, even if it's unintentional. dogs are living, feeling creatures, and should not be treated as toys or dress up dolls, or accessories. and that's what this seems like to me.

*some dogs were bred solely for companionship, but many were bred for work, which is a whole different argument, i guess.

[Astra.]

There seems to be no limits as to what some people will do. I'm not condoning it at all, but at least the dog was sedated.

Unlike this irresponsible and despicable mother.

http://www.examiner....-he-is-tattooed

[seaturtlehorsesnake]

ugh. it seems to me the right idea would be to never tattoo someone who is not themselves capable of giving consent, whether human or otherwise.

[thedutchiedutch]

Apparently it's nothing new, take a look at this link : http://shine.yahoo.com/pets/pet-ink-8-wild-pictures-animals-tattoos-160600883.html

[freetoroam]

I do not agree with tattooing animals, seaturtle explains welI #7.

But like to see the animal lovers protest on line about what is real animal abuse....the slaughtering of animals for religious purposes...

The owners do not hate their pets, on the contrary, so really I want to see those who have no respect for animals what so ever, targeted all over net, on the high street and in the restuarants which cater only with slaughtered animals. If the keyboard warriors want to complain about how animals are being treated.....then start at the top and do not pick on one person....cowards!

Can not go into detail, but my husband and i are currently pursuing a particular fast food chain because of one of their branches, if you knew the full details it would make all animal lovers pretty angry....true animal lovers would get out there and invesigate what is really going on with our beloved animals instead of moaning about one man who clearly does not hate or abuse his dog.

Many will say what he done was abuse, no its not, its just down right selfish and stupid,?

[Luca-RoseElsie-Raemom1921]

To me it's abuse plain and simple. Tail docking, ear cropping etc is abuse to. Desexing is not, desexing is stopping the spread of more unwanted animals. The tattoo he did has no porpose unlike the desexing or micro chip one, which are a lot smaller less detailed and less pain. Our dog Smudge (male who passed before we got Cooper) had been docked before we got him, we would have liked him to have his tail. Ofcourse thers are times where removing a body part is needed but that's different that's not a looks thing.

[freetoroam]

To me it's abuse plain and simple. Tail docking, ear cropping etc is abuse to. Desexing is not, desexing is stopping the spread of more unwanted animals. The tattoo he did has no porpose unlike the desexing or micro chip one, which are a lot smaller less detailed and less pain. Our dog Smudge (male who passed before we got Cooper) had been docked before we got him, we would have liked him to have his tail. Ofcourse thers are times where removing a body part is needed but that's different that's not a looks thing.

With some owners removing their dogs tails was definitely a looks thing, originally rottweilers a has their tails removed to show they were working dogs, then the new generation of owners cut them off because they thought it made them look 'ard.

Ruby, I certainly do not agree with tattooing pets, as a pet lover I do back this guy....I mention this because THIS is what I class as animal cruelty and this is what should be in the papers everyday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26463064

[libstaK]

To me it's abuse plain and simple. Tail docking, ear cropping etc is abuse to. Desexing is not, desexing is stopping the spread of more unwanted animals. The tattoo he did has no porpose unlike the desexing or micro chip one, which are a lot smaller less detailed and less pain. Our dog Smudge (male who passed before we got Cooper) had been docked before we got him, we would have liked him to have his tail. Ofcourse thers are times where removing a body part is needed but that's different that's not a looks thing.

Yeh, my dog Matilda had her tail docked too before we got her. I still feel sorry for her, especially when we go for a walk and another neighbour has a dog just like her but with a tail. I don't know if it bothers her but it sure bothers me when I think how much fun she could have had with that tail. It's cruel.

[:PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:]

ugh. it seems to me the right idea would be to never tattoo someone who is not themselves capable of giving consent, whether human or otherwise.

Agreed!

But the more I see what's out there in the world today, the less I'm convinced common sense will survive the next 20 years.

[Jilliman]

The question that's begging to be answered here is why the vet would let him tattoo his dog? The dog just underwent a surgery and the vet allowed him to tattoo his dog while she was still under anesthesia. This doesn't seem like a responsible vet or owner. :/