There's a silly (or sick, depending on your point of view) fad in Moscow - pet owners are tattoing their cats! Balcanpix has the story:
Still dazed after being anaesthetised for three hours, a pedigree pet is hauled upright to show off its new tattoo.
The controversial “body enhancement” was carried out on Mickey – a rare Canadian Hairless breed also known as a Sphynx cat.
His female owner was said to be delighted with the Tutankhamun design inked on to his chest at a tattoo parlour.
She said: “I wanted something new and different for the times we live in.”
Horrific or fashionable? What's your take?
Previously on Neatorama: Wim Delvoye's Tattooed pigs
They might as well start tattoing babies.
jeepers
I have four tats, and I made the choice to get them as a rational human being, but a pet cannot make that choice. I just don't see anything about this that is remotely ethical.
This is not nice.
It defies logic.
What a shallow, selfish thing to do to an animal. Disgusting.
That line makes no sense. For the times we live in? Does something about post-modernism cry out for a tattooed cat? Cats are perfect just the way they are.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:56 am
You know what’s cruel? Breeding a hairless cat in Canada.
haha, so true. however, i think we're all agreed that the idea of tattooing a helpless animal is just shameful.
Banksy's Graffitti animals
http://images.google.com/images?q=banksy%20animals&pws=0&hl=en&num=10&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
and
wim delvoye animal tattoos
http://ifitshipitshere.blogspot.com/2008/05/wim-delvoyes-swine-art-own-your-own.html
Seriously... who the hell thinks of this crap?
What next... giving your animals piercings?? How about under the skin implants so it makes them look like the have horns!
Good god people are stupid!
This is not cool.
I also wonder about the implications of the cat's much thinner skin going under the needle, and I wonder if the anesthetic was done by a skilled vet. I can't imagine a responsible vet being party to this.
The owner should be neutered, such stupidity should be removed from the gene pool.
THIS.
I am a cat owner
and owner of 8 tattoos, the longest which took 4 1/2 hours and covers my ankle to my knee and wraps around my leg.
my thing about tattoos is that they hurt during the process, but other then that, it will be sore for maybe a day or two, and feel just like a sunburn.
though i agree with the fact that the cat didn't have a choice, i don't think that the words - disgusting, vile, or horrific apply to this case. the cats going to be fine, and now has a sweet tat.
the owner may not have thought this out thouroughly, but there are plenty or more idiotic people out there, as well - piercings have been performed on animals for years, with piercings of dog ears, i don't condone it, but maybe the cat really will like it? who knows?
I'm gonna get a cat like that and will tattoo hair xD
And what about what they're doing down in Mexico-- CAT JUGGLING!!! FOR MONEY!!!
It's not just the fact that they're doing it, it's the fact that these idiots are doing it only as some stupid fashion statement.
Like the morons who carry around tiny chihuahuas as accessories instead of treating them as a living breathing feeling animal.
"The owner should be neutered, such stupidity should be removed from the gene pool."
Ditto that.
But it think there's a ton of animal cosmetic procedures that need to be outlawed,too. If it's only for modification of the looks of an otherwise normal healthy animal, animals shouldn't have to go through any surgical procedures. That goes for the surgery on Dobermans and Great Danes and such that makes their ears stand up and docking tails on pets. I think it's odd that while lots of people are outraged by animal tattooing, they're not "horrified" by seeing Dobermans with unnaturally pointed upright ears . That procedure is really painful. Much more painful than a tattoo. I guess it's just been being done longer. Things that are gross become less gross the more used to them we are I guess.
If people want painful cosmetic procedures to be beautiful, it's up to them. But animal owners shouldn't be able to choose to hurt their animals to make them prettier.
Then, in the comments someone says that next big thing will be piercings, and someone else says babies with tattoos will be next... So wouldn't babies with pierced ears fall into the same category of someone getting a body mod without being capable of giving consent?
People can be so inconsistent sometimes, it makes me really wonder.
Though I do think it's sad that the cat will be gawked at and man-handled so people can see his tattoo.
But people who do things like this for amusement should be careful with who they go to for the tattooing, because doctors aren't as careful with animals and sometimes they die from too much anaesthesia. It happened to my Dad's parrot and he's still bitter about it after about 15 years. Please be careful with their safety.
First there was that kenny glenn cat abuser who posted on youtube, then the kitten in a bong, and now the tatoo'ed cat. Whats next?
This is horrific not in that a tattoo is so harmful, because animals have been getting tattooed for identification for years (obviously not on an elaborate and ridiculous scale like this tat), but for the reasoning behind it. So it's a week of itching and pain afterwards for the cat, after a relatively risky procedure. Not a big deal if you look at it from that perspective, but it is a big deal when you consider the fact that it's bordering on abusive because there is no practical purpose for it.
Those of you commenting about cropping tails and ears on dogs - at one time, for some (not all) breeds, there was a practical purpose behind this. I don't agree with it unless it's for a working dog that would fall into this category. People, and kennel clubs are moving away from the unecessary ear and tail cropping little by little. Boxers in Germany are automatically disqualified if you crop their ears in any competition, and the uproar over the breeding practices in the UK has brought a lot of this stuff to light and bringing about changes.
Putting a tattoo on a cat, or any animal for the sole purpose of stroking one's ego is stupid and wrong. I don't know what's worse with this - that the owner thought of it at all, or that someone actually said, "Yeah, I'll do it."
It was never a matter of dissatisfaction with the job itself, or any sort of burn out. I enjoyed it far too much for that.
That's just not acceptable- anesthesia is usually safe, but far from 100% safe 100% of the time- especially not given the very sketchy way it looks like that cat was sedated/anesthetized (no IV catheter, no monitoring equipment, I could go on and on).
The American Veterinary Medical Association has just reaffirmed and strengthened their stance on cosmetic procedures for animals (http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/tail_docking.asp). Hopefully the vets in this country won't participate by providing anesthetic to anyone wishing this "procedure".
I'm very disappointed.
The cat doesn't care. The tat IS super sweet.
Tail docking, ear clipping... way worse then this.
On one hand, I am really upset by this. It is needless cosmetic alteration for human aesthetics (like ear cropping in modern times). It is a medical risk and even with pain management, it is not comfortable for the cat.
On the other hand, this person that spent all this money on their cat is likely (not guaranteed though) to be a good cat owner, who probably will assure a good quality of life overall.
I have seen lots of people who don't even bother getting vaccines for their pets and the animals come in deathly ill and the owners say "Put it to sleep I'll just buy a new one."
So Hey, it's not the end of the world. It occurred in Moscow, which I can imagine has much more relaxed animal rights/veterinary legislation than the UK or the US.
If someone asked me to do it or help with it, I'd say hell no. But if someone gets it done elsewhere, at least I can hope they did everything they could to have as-safe-as-possible anesthesia and good pain management...
As a tattoo and a cat lover I do think that looks awesome ('cept for the picture is ugly) but I could never do that for a cat.. Or any other animal.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1028-Pet-News-Examiner~y2008m12d20-Gothic-Kittens-sold-on-eBay-are-rescued
Let's just say that the hairless breeders of the Peterbald, Donskoy and Sphynx are getting pretty upset with anyone doing this. If we see you, let's just say the PETA people who throw paint on fur wearers will look like a tea party compared to what we'll do to you.
Have a pleasant day.
And I agree with the others, its a cat, I dont see why these people spend $700 plus on an animal that may die within a year, And then to spend more money on a tattoo for it, but I guess even a tattoo cant take away from the uglyness of those cats.
Its cruel and pointless
CRAZY FEMALE!!!!!
CATS ARE NOOOOOTTTT A HANDBAG!!!!!!
WHAT DOES SHE THINK SHE IS??!!!??????????????????????
pooooooooooooooor cat.... *snivel, snivel.*
Tatted cats are sick. Get into it.