By Dawn Cranfield
Pictures of Tattooed Pit Bull on Facebook Draws the Ire of Animal Lovers
Ernesto Rodriguez of North Carolina drew more attention than he expected when he posted pictures of his five-month old pit bull, Dutchess on his Facebook page. Rodriguez had tattooed Dutchess with her name and a crest he states is related to her bloodline on her stomach.
According to Rodriguez, the tattoo can be used for identification purposes and was not cruel. He contends that tattooing is similar to branding and is a somewhat common practice amongst pet owners. He compared it to the branding of farm animals.
Dutchess was marked in a tattoo parlor operated in the basement of Rodriguez’ home.
Stephanie Bay posts, “You are an absolutely disgusting human being for claiming that you ‘love’ your dog and think that it’s ok to tattoo him. Did he give you informed consent? No. He’s a dog. You have no empathy for animals and should not be allowed to care for any and you should not be allowed to be a tattoo artist because you have poor ethics.”
After the health department visited Rodriguez’ home, he was issued a cease and desist order, but not because of the complaints against him for tattooing his dog. Apparently, he did not have the proper zoning permits to run a tattoo parlor out of his basement.
However, Rodriguez was not sidetracked by the outage on Facebook or by the visit by the health department, “Here is the final results for you haters out there,” he posted on Facebook, “Animal control came looked at my beautiful dog and left… wow… what a waste of tax payers (sic) money… so im (sic) still gonna tattoo my dogs when ever i feel like it… good try haters thanks for all the advertisement.”