Poll of the Day > Guy gets fined for painting his Dog like a Pokemon (Pikachu)...

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/miami-dade-man-cited-after-he-had-dog-s-coat-dyed-to-look-like-pikachu-character/ar-AA15OXMX

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/8/8/AADtvSAAEDhM.jpg

You you think he should've been? (Poll Question)

Sounds like a pretty straightforward "yes." The law clearly prohibits the sale of dyed animals, he bought a dyed animal (note that the ticket was issued to the vendor, not the owner). There's potentially some room to debate whether or not the law should be so absolute, since not all dyes are a threat to animal welfare, but enough are (even if you put genuine effort into researching their safety) and it's so difficult to determine their toxicity after the fact that I think it's reasonable to rule them out altogether. That's especially true at the vendor's end, since there's considerable incentive for vendors to cut corners on safety for the sake of making a novelty sale (to say nothing of how inherently questionable it is to sell people an animal they wouldn't have bought if it looked like it's going to look when the dye wears out).

Stupid thing to do but as long as the dyes are not harmful then I don't see why it should be worthy of a fine.

Revelation34 posted...

Stupid thing to do but as long as the dyes are not harmful then I don't see why it should be worthy of a fine.

From an enforcement perspective, the problem is figuring out whether or not the dyes are harmful. It's not a simple matter of "did the dog get sick right after being painted?", since so many dyes can cause cancer or other long-term effects that won't show up right away, and short of taking a hair sample from the dog and analyzing it in a lab (expensive and time-consuming), all you can really do is ask what kind of dye was used and take their word for it. If it's a reputable groomer and you can verify their products, that's potentially okay, but for pretty much anyone else a blanket ban makes enough sense for me to be okay with it.

I hate people who treat animals like they're toys or accessories. Shaving your cat like a lion, dyeing their cat, etc. It's disgusting

BADoglick posted...

I hate people who treat animals like they're toys or accessories. Shaving your cat like a lion, dyeing their cat, etc. It's disgusting

Shaving the cat like that isn't done just for looks.

Indeed. Lion cuts are done for cats that would otherwise be prone to matting. That's not to say there aren't people who do them for fun, and that's kind of questionable, but there are legitimate reasons to do it.

adjl posted...

Indeed. Lion cuts are done for cats that would otherwise be prone to matting. That's not to say there aren't people who do them for fun, and that's kind of questionable, but there are legitimate reasons to do it.

It's also done because shaving a cats head is harder to do without shaving off the whiskers.

Without knowing more I would say a (documented) warning might have sufficed here.

And also without being mauled.

Seems like animal abuse. Fair, Next

Why do people do this shit?

What kind of poll is this? Is it illegal where the person lives? Did they do it anyway? Then what do you think?

Yes, for animal abuse.

Poll question not clear.

fuckin duuuuuumb.

absolutely yes, and he should've had the dog taken away.

dioxxys posted...

Poll question not clear.

Asking whether or not the dude should've been fined for dyeing the dog yellow

He wasn't the one who dyed the dog, so he shouldn't have been fined for dyeing it, but he should have been fined for purchasing a dyed animal because that's also illegal under the same law that prohibits dyeing them.

adjl posted...

He wasn't the one who dyed the dog, so he shouldn't have been fined for dyeing it, but he should have been fined for purchasing a dyed animal because that's also illegal under the same law that prohibits dyeing them.

He was the guy that dyed the dog. He runs a store, but this was his family dog.

"Its made NBA history because nobodys ever seen a Pikachu dog sitting next to an NBA player before," said the dog's owner Erik Torres.

"Pikachu, however, is his family dog and not for sale."

"He said he bought a bottle of dye and maintains it is even safe enough for him to eat. He plans to appeal the citation."

Huh. My mistake, I didn't read the full article text.

adjl posted...

Indeed. Lion cuts are done for cats that would otherwise be prone to matting. That's not to say there aren't people who do them for fun, and that's kind of questionable, but there are legitimate reasons to do it.

Yeah, it's a good thing to do if your cat has long hair and refuses to let you brush them- I have a cat that draws blood if you even try to brush him for more than like... 2 seconds, and he's not capable of taking care of his own fur, so...

adjl posted...

Sounds like a pretty straightforward "yes." The law clearly prohibits the sale of dyed animals, he bought a dyed animal (note that the ticket was issued to the vendor, not the owner). There's potentially some room to debate whether or not the law should be so absolute, since not all dyes are a threat to animal welfare, but enough are (even if you put genuine effort into researching their safety) and it's so difficult to determine their toxicity after the fact that I think it's reasonable to rule them out altogether. That's especially true at the vendor's end, since there's considerable incentive for vendors to cut corners on safety for the sake of making a novelty sale (to say nothing of how inherently questionable it is to sell people an animal they wouldn't have bought if it looked like it's going to look when the dye wears out).

If dyes are considered by many to be harmful to animals, why do people use dyes on their own hair? That makes no sense, it sounds like it might not be safe for any living being by that logic.

Tag365 posted...

If dyes are considered by many to be harmful to animals, why do people use dyes on their own hair?

Well... we are built differently.

Tag365 posted...

If dyes are considered by many to be harmful to animals, why do people use dyes on their own hair? That makes no sense, it sounds like it might not be safe for any living being by that logic.

Off the top of my head (pun not intended):

• Humans dye hair that covers a very small percentage of their total skin surface area, as opposed to dyeing an animal's entire body
• Humans don't typically lick their hair, dyed or otherwise
• Humans have a lower surface area:mass ratio than most pets (which translates directly into lower concentrations of any dermal toxins)
• Human hair and animal hair have different compositions and therefore may require different dye formulations
• Being non-toxic for humans doesn't necessarily translate to being non-toxic for animals
• Products sold for human use tend to be better tested and regulated than products sold for animal use
• Whatever dangers the dyes do carry, those are dangers that people choose to subject themselves to, which is fundamentally different from forcing a creature that cannot consent to face them

More than any of that, though, it's less a question of whether or not the dyes are dangerous and more a question of how feasible it is for those responsible for ensuring the animals' safety to figure out whether or not the dyes are dangerous. More often than not, all they can really go on is the word of the owner/groomer/whoever dyed the animal, and given that people don't usually admit guilt that freely, that's not very helpful. To that end, if your goal is to prevent animals from being poisoned by harmful dyes, a blanket ban on all dyes is the easiest and most effective way to make that happen. While that does mean harmless dye jobs are also going to be prohibited, that's not really a major loss because it's not something that's at all necessary for anyone to do, so calling it an acceptable casualty is reasonable.

I misunderstood the question and accidentally marked "Nah" when I meant "Yah." It won't let me fix the mistake.

I think dying fur is animal abuse. It is causing discomfort to the animals.