Amazon.com Widgets

Should owners be allowed to tattoo their dogs for identification purposes?

  • Permanent, Small, Harmless

    The number one reason identification tattoos should be allowed is that dogs with tattoo are forbidden by law from being used in animal testing. This makes your pet of little value to pet thieves. There is no other form of identification that is virtually 100% fool proof. Microchips can fail and tags can come off but tattoos are for life. Done under anesthetic most dogs will ever even know anything happened.

  • Yes, the owner should be allowed to tatto their dogs for identification.

    Tattoo's your pet is not the same as branding like you do a cow. I think it shows that you love your pet so much, you want to be able to find him if he is lost. Also, if someone steals him, there would be proof that he is yours. To me, it is the same as the chip you have implanted into your pet. Your dog should be a part of your family!

  • Dog Owners Should Be Allowed to Tattoo Their Dogs

    Why would this even be an area of controversy? A dog owner, who chose to tattoo their dog, would not be trying to inflict harm upon their pet, but only be providing a means to identify their dog. I cannot for the life of me decide why this would be necessary, but in the end, it will not harm the dog for life, or is it really any different than branding cattle for identification purposes, so to each his own I suppose, but it clearly should be the choice of the dog owner. Just no naked ladies please.

  • No, I do not think so.

    While tattoos are hard to say if they really hurt the dog or not, I think it would be safer and kinder to use a less harsh tactic to keep identification on your dog. In my time with several dogs and animals I have never had a problem using a simple collar that didn't hang too tight around their neck and had some cute "bling" to it. I don't really see any reason to go as extreme as tattooing the dog.

  • No, there are more humane methods.

    In the spirit of animal rights, though a dog is the property of an owner, it is unlawful to abuse a dog, and tattooing of a dog is totally unnecessary and a form of abuse because it is painful. A dog can have a microchip inserted for identification, and that is a painless process. Tattooing of a dog seems simply a "thug," narcissistic thing for an owner to do.

  • It hurts them very much

    You are evil to say they should be tattooed. They should rather micro chip them. It is far less painful to do so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! 1!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are hurting the poor things . How can you be so mean !

  • It hurts them very much

    You are evil to say they should be tattooed. They should rather micro chip them. It is far less painful to do so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! 1!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are hurting the poor things . How can you be so mean !


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.