New York tattoo artist Mistah Metro tattoos dog, sparks outrage

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?