Clothing brand shared photo of spray-painted dog on social media
On Tuesday (23 June), a netizen took to Threads to call out a clothing brand in the Philippines for sharing a photo of a spray-painted dog on social media, allegedly as a marketing stunt.
In response, the brand said they had no intention of harming or mistreating the dog, and that hair dye intended for animals had been used.
However, animal advocates insisted that it was an act of animal abuse and have since reported the incident to the local animal welfare society.
Netizen says painting on dog is ‘animal abuse’
Screenshots shared by the netizen show that the streetwear brand FUKK had shared an Instagram story of a brown mongrel with the brand name painted on its side.
Source: @flametothevoid on Threads
“Animals are living beings capable of feeling stress, fear, and discomfort,” the netizen wrote. “They are not props for social media content, clout, or shock value.”
They added that the post sent a “dangerous message” by normalising cruelty for attention.
The netizen also demanded that the brand take accountability, remove the content, and ensure the animal’s welfare is protected.
Brand claims animal-safe hair dye was used on dog
Following the backlash, the brand shared a screenshot of an exchange with the original poster (OP) of the dog’s photos.
According to the individual, believed to be the dog owner, they did not use spray paint, but hair dye to write the brand name on the dog’s fur.
“I am not a jerk to do that to my dog. That’s hair dye,” said the OP.
Source: @flametothevoid on Threads
The brand also posted an Instagram story, saying, “There was never any intention to harm or mistreat the dog.”
They claimed the product used was “hair dye that is intended for use on animals and is considered safe when used properly”.
The brand also apologised for causing confusion or concern due to the images.
Source: @flametothevoid on Threads
Netizens call on animal welfare organisations to take action
Despite the explanation, critics maintained that dyeing animals for content remains unethical.
The netizen who first raised the issue argued that even animal-safe products can still pose risks such as skin irritation, allergic reactions, and long-term health effects.
They also said that regardless of the substance used, animals should not be used as “canvases”.
Even if the substance is marketed as ‘safe,’ the act itself disregards the animal’s dignity and well-being.
Other social media users have since tagged and emailed the Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) and other organisations, calling for an investigation into the incident.
Also read: Owner heartbroken after internet-famous dog gets stolen, sold for S$34 & eaten in China
Owner heartbroken after internet-famous dog gets stolen, sold for S$34 & eaten in China
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.
Featured image adapted from @flametothevoid on Threads.
