Brooklyn Man Tattoos Dog, Wins 'Biggest Jackass' Award

Illustration for article titled Brooklyn Man Tattoos Dog, Wins 'Biggest Jackass' Award

I don't know who's the bigger problem here, the tattoo artist who surprised his dog with ink during her spleen surgery, or the unnamed veterinarian who allegedly allowed the inking. Either way, this is bad news all around, and the worst news is this: It's not yet illegal to tattoo your animal in New York.


Look, I get it. People like to dress up their animals. Dogs look adorable in sweaters. So do cats. Sometimes Bunnies, too. (But usually not, because they are vicious and will look directly at you as they shred the sweater with their teeth.) But tattooing your animal so it looks cool? Well, that's just fucked up. There's a reason that adult humans have to consent to the procedure, and animals (no matter how cool you think they might think a tattoo is) can't say yes or no. And if you have to tattoo your dog while it's under, I bet it was going to be a no in the first place.

Mistah Metro, the tattoo artist in question, appears to feel differently:

"Mistah Metro," ... has become the enemy of all animal-rights activists this week after he posted a photo on Instagram of his dog's new ink. "One of the many reasons my dog is cooler than yours! She had her spleen removed today and the vet let me tattoo her while she was under," he captioned the since-deleted picture. (Seriously, bro?) "Had to delete my account and make another, some people just don't appreciate anything! It's an ANIMAL with a TATTOO!"

If there's a silver lining here it's that Mistah Metro's actions have reached New York Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, who's proposed a new bill that would make tattooing one's pet illegal. And Rosenthal makes an excellent point:

"If a person is weighing whether to get a tattoo, they will consider the amount of pain the procedure will cause both during and afterward against the benefits that they will receive from it," the politician wrote in a press release. "As we all know, animals do not have the capacity to make these decisions, nor can they contextualize that the pain they feel might result in what some might consider beautiful body art; sadly, all they know is the pain."

Let's hope this bill garners support before a trend of tattooing animals begins. (I know that sounds a little far-fetched, but I am not fully convinced that there aren't people out there who saw the photos of Mistah Metro's dog and immediately decided that an "I LOVE MOM" tattoo is exactly what their pet was missing.)


I got into an argument over this on another forum, but as a former vet tech, what galls me is that the doctor allowed this. It required that the dog be kept under anesthesia for the tattoo, which occurred after the surgery. MAJOR surgery, that resulted in a large amount of blood loss, dangerously low body temperature, and all sorts of other serious effects. I was taught that you shouldn't keep an animal under anesthesia a minute longer than necessary. But the doc finished the surgery then turned the animal over to the owner to tattoo, adding at least 10-15 minutes for the animal to breathe in anesthetic gas instead of oxygen and being allowed to recover. From the picture, the dog looked like a small-ish/medium sized dog, which loses body temp quickly. I just have a real problem with allowing this to happen for a completely medically unnecessary, cosmetic procedure. There was no medical benefit to the dog, which was already dealing with medical issues that caused him to have to undergo a splenectomy (likely a tumor). Why add to his recovery the risk of infection from a tattoo? Especially to a pup that just lost it's spleen?

Super irresponsible. The vet needs his license reviewed.