- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
man tattoos pit bull
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:22 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:22 am
10
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:24 am to Nado Jenkins83
Not really a big deal. People tattoo ID numbers on dogs.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:24 am to SabiDojo
most livestock have tattooed ears. No more inhumane than docking tails or clipping ears for aesthetics IMO
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 8:25 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:26 am to bayoudude
Big difference from tatooing a few numbers vs this.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:26 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
you guys are aware that the ASPCA tattoos dogs & cats once they've speyed or neutered them, right?
quote:
The ASPCA condones the use of tattooing for only identification purposes following spay or neuter surgery. This practice helps animal welfare professionals clearly identify animals that have been altered, thereby preventing unnecessary future surgeries. This painless procedure is performed by a licensed veterinarian or veterinary technician while the animal is under anesthesia. The marks are very small and have a specific purpose, which is to avoid inflicting undue pain and stress later if that animal is unknowingly brought in for a spay surgery a second time.
Tattooing an animal for the vain sake of joy and entertainment of the owner - without any regard for the well-being of the animal - is not at all comparable to the incident in question and is not something the ASPCA supports.
Ah, so as long as the ASPCA does it, it's ok.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:26 am to Nado Jenkins83
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:27 am to Nado Jenkins83
trashy
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:29 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Ah, so as long as the ASPCA does it, it's ok.
Im not debating that. Im just saying that its pretty trashy. The dog was under for having its spleen removed.
The guys response was "My dog is cooler than yours"
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:30 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
pit bull
quote:
trashy
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:30 am to Nado Jenkins83
Not a good idea to put your dog under general anesthesia if you don't have to. Other than that....eh whatever.
ETA: My dog doesn't have a tattoo because she's classy as f***.
ETA: My dog doesn't have a tattoo because she's classy as f***.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 8:31 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:33 am to Nado Jenkins83
People put tats in dogs ears.. - Stupid OP.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:34 am to Nado Jenkins83
I really don't see the big deal with this. The dog was sedated. The vet allowed it. The animal probably isn't in any pain other than some itching. as long as the guy takes the time to keep it clean, the animal probably won't know the difference. Also, the animal is the guy's property.
That being said, I would never do it to my dog.
That being said, I would never do it to my dog.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:34 am to mylsuhat
quote:
pit bull
quote:
trashy
My sister is in the top 5 of the best people I know. She has two pit bulls. Is she trashy. Definitely not.
Not the point. The dog in my link looks nothing like a pit bull. The article claims it is however.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:36 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:Does she have tattoos?
My sister is in the top 5 of the best people I know. She has two pit bulls. Is she trashy. Definitely not.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:41 am to OldSouth
quote:
Does she have tattoos?
PICS if so.
PICS anyway actually.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:42 am to OldSouth
nope
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:44 am to Nado Jenkins83
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:45 am to OldSouth
trashy, but not exactly wrong. Dog was sedated for a valid reason.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:46 am to Dam Guide
quote:
trashy, but not exactly wrong. Dog was sedated for a valid reason.
Thats what I was getting at when I posted.
Plus you would think he could have tattoed something better than that. I don't have any tats though and never will.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:46 am to Dam Guide
I honestly don't even care if the dog was sedated only for the purpose of tattooing it.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News