EDIT: my initial response was no, just no, to the whole thing, but to be fair to your question, I don't think it would be moral to use an animal as an inanimate object for art or expression, or even idle messing around with a needle and ink. The animal is sentient, they will feel that and there will be no practical improvement in the animals life (as would happen when an animal is given a number or a distinguishing mark). It's needlessly selfish and thoughtless towards the animal.
I do not approve. Even if the animal is sedated there is still pain afterward. I think this is just horrible. Can't you just use henna instead? :(
Not cool. If the animal/person cannot give consent, no tattoo should be given.
I feel like inflicting pain on an animal for aesthetic purposes, whether it's tattooing, tail/ear docking, whatever, is morally wrong.
But at the same time, those pigs are probably happier and healthier than any un-tattooed pigs people everywhere have in commercial farms and stuff so...it's a grey area.
i thought tail docking was also done for health reasons? and i witnessed as a child a litter of puppies getting their tails docked and none of them cried until their dew claws were removed then they squealed. is this a misconception of mine that tail docking isn't painful to puppies? PLEASE EDUCATE MY IGNORANCE.
No no no no no. As pirihan said, there is still pain afterwards regardless of sedation, and that is not fair. Why make an animal suffer just so it looks pretty?
Not cool. For the reason stated above: it's for the owners' amusement.
Doing it to a baby is worse.
I don't think it's good, but I think that there are a lot of worse animals rights issues that need to be addressed before we get panties in a bunch over this. I don't see it as drastically different from punching holes in their ears for tags or whatever.
My cat has a tattoo. They gave her one to show that she's fixed/chipped. I know people who have gotten their child's blood type tattooed (very small) on them, which I think was silly because a) medical alert bracelets, anyone? and b) I don't think doctors are going to know to even look for that.
Plus didn't the Nazi SS get their blood type tattooed on their upper arm? I remember reading about that and then seeing it on TV.
Honestly, all i can think of is getting Princess a tattoo that says "Daddy's Girl."
It's stupid. Tattoos hurt while they're healing and animals don't understand that tattoos have to be kept clean and that they shouldn't scratch them, etc. It's ok for a human to choose to suffer for the sake of aesthetics, but animals can't make that decision.
If your "subject" can't say "yes" to whatever you want to do to it, that's a pretty big indicator that you should not be doing it. I can understand this not applying in medical situations, or even in the situation where they gave my dog a tiny little "I'm not a tramp" stamp after she was neutered, but when it's for the amusement of someone else just... no.
Wait, they tattooed your dog after she got fixed?
while I think its a terrible idea across the board, I'm also surprised to find there are people who have to time and energy to care about tattooing their pets. I MEAN WHAT ON EARTH
This was basically my thoughts.
If you're keeping an animal to love and care for you wouldn't do anything to hurt them or put them through any discomfort unless its for their own good. Although in comparison to what the meat industry does to animals, what this man is doing to his pigs is humane and even admirable... that is only in comparison to waiting to be slaughtered whilst living in filth in an over crowded unsanitary pen.
THIS is what people are getting mad about? While turning a blind eye to the everyday atrocities that happen at farms/slaughterhouses in general? A few fucking tattoos? Give me a break.
Protip: People can have feels about more than one issue at a time.
I do not approve. The animals cannot give consent to this.
With that logic, animals can't give consent to much of anything. They can't consent to vet visits, or immunisations, or surgeries, or anything else that humans put them through for good or bad.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just when I read your response it made me think of what I said above.
I really don't know how to feel about decorative tattooing of animals. It's hardly the worst thing out there, and....it would make it nearly impossible to steal the animal. Where as I.D. tattoos can easily be removed as they're fairly small and done in the ear or on the stomach, no one is going to want to try removing ALL of that.
Lol, this had occurred to me, as well. The dude probably has no worries about anyone stealing his pigs. Tattoos can be useful in that case.
The pigs are probably are probably living better lives than most pigs in the world. There's worse things happening to animals, but I'm still against it. It's like cropping/docking, just aesthetic.
I'm leery of sedating anyone for non-medical reasons, because there are risks (albeit slight) involved with sedation. Both that and the aftereffects of healing from a tattoo make me against it. I don't know if there are social implications for these animals based on looking so different from other members of their species, but it's also a possibility that a responsible animal lover should consider.
I'm far more against people tattooing babies, unless they have an excellent reason. If they lived in a culture where having no tattoos would be a source of social embarrassment, then I suppose I could see the point, though I wouldn't be comfortable with the custom. If it were for a medical reason I could see that too, but I'm not personally aware of any situation in which a medical bracelet wouldn't serve just as well. If parents tattooed their child for their own amusement or to try to force their child into some identity which the child is too young to freely choose, my first thought is that those parents should have the words "poor judgement" tattooed across their foreheads.
this is just absolutely wrong to me. Even just seeing the pictures is upsetting. I wish they had been under a cut :\
Edited at 2012-12-19 09:55 pm (UTC)
sorry. didn't think they would be that level of bothersome :/
No, I don't agree with it. Why should these animals be put through pain for their owners' amusement? They can't give consent, therefore they shouldn't be forced to get the tatoo.
*shrugs* If it doesn't hurt the animal, then I don't see the problem. The animal is never going to be aware of what's on its skin and form an opinion about it like a person would.