Owning a dog is worse than owning an SUV...

[cynatnite]

PARIS (AFP) – Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.

But the revelation in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.

The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.

Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.

"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood

Don't shoot the messenger.

[dysfunctional press]

1. just one more reason why i don't concern myself with our household carbon footprint.

que sera sera.

[Liquorice]

38. Such a sweet face! I have a black lab too. :-) nt

[asdjrocky]

49. What a sweetie!

That picture shows me nothing but love.

[rwheeler31]

2. A dog can live on less meat, if that is the problem

build a better dog food.

[HuckleB]

5. Our dog was on a hypoallergenic food without meat for 14 of her 16 years.

She did fantastic on it.

[Maraya1969]

23. If you want to spend the money you can feed them duck and rabit and deer

Especially if your cat or dog has allergies or stomach problems it is good to change to one of these foods for a while to give their little stomachs a break from the same old meat.

[Kalyke]

60. I have a young dog with a congenital liver problem and an older

dog with just "old dog" digestive issues.

I cook for them a mix of ground turkey, whole grain rice and mixed vegetables. The meat has to be relatively small for the portion because my dog with liver issues cannot eat high amounts of meat proteins or he gets bladder stones.

As a result, my dogs' carbon footprint is probably far less than those in the OP's article.

[HuckleB]

87. You could do that, too.

I'm not sure what that would do for the carbon footprint issue, though.

[bertman]

123. Mine had pizza crust for dinner tonight. She loved it. Special Holiday treat.

(Please don't tell my wife)

:evilgrin:

[Goldstein1984]

3. Obviously an unpopular OP, but interesting nonetheless

That said, my dog Bruno is a better human being than more Republicans I know.

They'll take the long ride before I let him.

Bruno has saved a life. The Republicans are costing tens of thousands of lives a year by opposing meaningful health care reform.

Everything is kind of relative, I think.

[Ex Lurker]

122. they've lost me with this

even if true (which I'm skeptical) so fucking what? I'll do a lot of things, but I won't give up my dogs. Sorry. End of discussion.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. My vehicle gets 19mpg... do people think we care what our dogs "carbon footprint" is?

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

6. Now there's a brilliant response.

:rofl: INDEED!

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. Yeah, really... you ever tried bringing groceries home on the dog?

:shrug:


























:rofl: :hi:

[rwheeler31]

26. Yup sick ones and young ones.

Cook some oatmeal,mix in a little peanut butter. Let them lick it of your hand, it is not that hard.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cynatnite]

12. Tell your dog I'm only a messenger...

:)

[HuckleB]

9. I am a bit puzzled.

I mean, I loved my dog. I'd love to have another. And we have a cat now. Still, I recommended this. I welcomed the questions that it brings. Why would DUers knee-jerk toward the unrec button on this? Or are many of us truly that thoughtless? Do we actually fail to challenge ourselves on basic things like this?

[WhiteTara]

10. is that feeding them canned food or

just bagged dry food?

[LeftyMom]

11. That argument assumes that dogs must eat meat.

Since they almost invariably do fabulously on vegan diets (with the same health and environmental benefits applying that apply to human diets) that's really more an argument for changing the composition of their diets than for not caring for dogs. :shrug:

[Maraya1969]

25. I'm afraid to give my dogs vegetarian food because they are carnivores.

I saw a veterinarian on Oprah who said the best food for a dog is raw meat.

[LeftyMom]

27. They work fine. I know plenty of dogs thriving on them.

[lukasahero]

55. Dogs are omnivores.

Not carnivores.

[pipi_k]

85. Raw meat diets very popular on one of the GSD sites I visit

I considered doing it with my two girls...gave them raw chicken mixed in with their kibble...they loved it, but I was real nervous about salmonella and stuff, so now I cook the giblets/liver/meat and grind it up (no bones) and throw it in with their kibble.

I also give them whatever cooked or raw vegies that might be left over from our dinner. And sometimes a cooked egg or two.

Their fur is beautiful :)

Funny dogs, though...their favorite greens is lettuce. It has to be Romaine lettuce...what we give the geese to supplement their scratch feed in the winter.


Lucy and Nikki:

[HuckleB]

88. Our dog ended up on a vegetarian food simply because it was hypoallergenic.

She still got fish and meat scraps now and then, but she lived 16 years, and she was a large lab mutt, who even went backpacking with us until a couple months before she died.

I'd say that vegetarian food did her just fine.

[tonysam]

13. More crackpottery

I suspect these cranks are animal rights extremists who will lie like rugs to try and con people to not have dogs as pets.

[LeftyMom]

16. Yeah, I think not.

Based on the fact that I almost certainly know more "animal rights extremists" than you do, and almost all of them have rescued animals, including dogs, in their homes.

[cynatnite]

18. Well, the data was double checked from what the article says. n/t

[Book Lover]

94. Wrong track there, friend

I'm very alone in my belief that humans should not own animals. I live in SF and know more animal rights activists than you do - none of them agree with me, and I never push the line.

[PufPuf23]

14. Carbon footprints are local

Wood is my primary source of heat and I live on an inholding in 5 million acres of federal land with extremely low population density (where natural and traditional fire patterns have been morphed by 160 years of colonialism -- admission: I am a 3rd to 5th generation colonial). Fire is part of the natural and Indian ecological cycle but has been altered by Europeans.

Just because an urban area has a lower carbon footprint per capita doesn't account for the externalities that allow that mathematical calculation.

I don't have a dog (but like hounds and retrievers) -- my pets are a yard skunk and a rubber snake with personality and believe it or not utility (cherry tree protector and object of conversation or home decoration in the off season -- isn't it cool I am so carbon neutral in my pets?

[pnwmom]

20. Your yard skunk has a carbon footprint. n/t

[PufPuf23]

31. probably not as much net carbon footprint as the rubber snake.

I could go off topic with things less aggravating than politics here &;o)

[spin]

15. I recommend we restrict dog ownership to econo-dogs...

dogs like Boston Terriers and Chihuahuas.

Only the army and the police should be allowed to own larger breeds.

Who needs a larger dog anyway. They are only designed for one thing, biting.

':sarcasm:'

[Maraya1969]

17. The psycholigical benefits outweight any carbon footprint as far as I am concerned.

Prince Harry loves his sister Peanut, (she is the dog)

[dana_b]

108. oh my goodness...

they are too cute!!!! I drive less, I'm a vegetarian eating less and less dairy products all the time but take away my pooch??? Argh!!!!

[JCMach1]

19. Why not feed them scraps then and take the waste out of the landfill...

just a modest proposal.

[The Straight Story]

21. The real issue is the control freaks, here and elsewhere, who want to use carbon as an excuse to

control others. They will do it, no doubt about it, and sadly many will cheer them on.

[AndrewP]

84. Well said

[jus_the_facts]

97. Yep...make the anti-cigarette threads look tame by comparison...

:smoke:

[rwheeler31]

22. I am sorry for the reaction to this all I was trying to say

if their is a problem try to fix it.

[aquart]

36. It's saying carnivores have no right to exist.

Which, if you think about it, is a stupid thing to say.

[GoCubsGo]

51. No, it's saying pets are not "environmentally friendly"

Which is equally stupid. The authors are basing their remarks on an assumption that the ingredients for pet food are produced outright for that purpose. That is an invalid assumption. As others have pointed out farther down this thread, what goes into pet food is mostly the scraps from food produced for human consumption.

[Lint Head]

24. I wonder how large the carbon footprints are for all the new studies

that are done to find out how large a carbon footprint is.

[vixengrl]

28. My younger brother, Yoshikitsune --the shiba inu my parents

adopted and named, thoughtlessly, "Buster" ("of stones"--which is what it says on his pedigree papers--when they should have asked me to tender a suggestion that would have been less butch and more pedigree-appropriate. Also he likes it when I talk Japanese to him, if I also offer belly rubs and something like half of what I'm eating) would eat locally, if he could only catch the things locally--like squirrels, but he has a harness when he walks to keep him from dodging cars. Because of him, and one of my other brothers, Casey, the ASPCA hood-rat extraordinaire,

(a mixed-breed of extraordinary learning capacity--he was a smart dog who knew a lot of commands, even though when we first took him out of the SPCA, he didn't recognize grass, and walked on it funny, like it was a weird new experience for him--but he was happy on concrete and knew everything about wildlife take-downs on instinct, even wrestling with hawks, rabbits, raccoons, and bunnies. Yes, I said hawks. He nearly tore a drumstick off of a winged fowl that misunderstood what Casey was doing with a rabbit. He was doing "catch and release". The hawk thought there was a food source being piddled away. And Casey thought he never caught a bird before, so why not?)

I know domestic companion animals don't choose what they would like to eat, even if they wanted to. They would like to eat locally, even hunt locally, and I think when dogs walk with us, they kind of wish we were hunting something as we went. There are definitely local choices sometimes--Amish-farmers' market meat. I know where that came from. But otherwise, the tinned stuff dogs eat is no more weird and carbon foot-printy than what I eat, since I also am a carnivore. It's up to us to modify the food supply to make the appetites of dogs and us more amenable to the environment.

[Goldom]

29. What this ignores

is the (conceptually disgusting, yet statistically important) fact that dog food includes the parts that most people in the U.S. don't want to eat anyway. It's not like we're really raising 2 acres of cattle just for each dog's food.

[Blue-Jay]

30. My dog prefers her food with extra snouts and anuses.

anii?

[TexasObserver]

32. A pet is about the owner, not the animal.

It's like religion. People pick the one that makes THEM feel good about themselves.

The dog eats mainly meat from animals who were killed to meet the demand for pet food. A horse dies so a dog can live.

A pet dog of any size produces a carbon footprint twice the size of an SUV.

[Enrique]

33. especially if it's a pit bull

:hide:

[Iggo]

34. And having a kid must be way worse, I suppose. (n/t)

;-)

[lukasahero]

57. Shhh - that kind of thinking is not allowed. eom

[marmar]

58. Definitely true.....A child is an environmental disaster....Check this out:

http://motherjones.com/environment/2008/04/whats-your-babys-carbon-footprint

[Kali]

35. there seems to be some problems with the current calculations for livestock

I just read something (admittedly in a trade mag) done on a review of the work.

Found it. http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9336

<snip>

Mitloehner traces much of the public confusion over meat and milk’s role in climate change to two sentences in a 2006 United Nations report, titled "Livestock's Long Shadow." Printed only in the report's executive summary and nowhere in the body of the report, the sentences read: “The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). This is a higher share than transport.”

These statements are not accurate, yet their wide distribution through news media have put us on the wrong path toward solutions, Mitloehner says.

<snip>

Mitloehner particularly objects to the U.N.'s statement that livestock account for more greenhouse gases than transportation, when there is no generally accepted global breakdown of gas production by industrial sector.

He notes that "Livestock's Long Shadow" produced its numbers for the livestock sector by adding up emissions from farm to table, including the gases produced by growing animal feed; animals' digestive emissions; and processing meat and milk into foods. But its transportation analysis did not similarly add up emissions from well to wheel; instead, it considered only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving.

Disclosure snip:

"Clearing the Air" is a synthesis of research by the UC Davis authors and many other institutions, including the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board. Writing the synthesis was supported by a $26,000 research grant from the Beef Checkoff Program, which funds research and other activities, including promotion and consumer education, through fees on beef producers in the U.S.

Since 2002, Mitloehner has received $5 million in research funding, with 5 percent of the total from agricultural commodities groups, such as beef producers.

[rwheeler31]

37. We do not change, we do not build , when

we have to fight the money.

[Touchdown]

39. I didn't want a dog cuz I don't want to pick up shit... so I got a cat.

... where I have to pick up shit.:cry:

[nsd]

40. Having a baby is worse than owning an SUV ...

So what?

[Hubert Flottz]

41. That's why I feed Cujo those yummy door to door evangelists...

[hfojvt]

42. who the heck feeds their dog that much meat?

Not me. The ingredients for my dog food say - "wheat middlings, ground yellow corn, soybean meal, meat and bone meal, animal fat, animal digest, calcium carbonate ...."

If you just look at the costs of the gas their numbers do not add up for me. At 6,200 miles at 20 mpg that would be 310 gallons of gas per year. Which is $775 at $2.50 per gallon or $620 at $2 per gallon. That's $51 per month and I probably spend less than 1/3 of that to feed TWO medium sized dogs. So their numbers must be based on very high-meat expensive dog food (and I am not sure how they define medium sized. I would say that my dogs at 40-60 pounds are medium sized.) Not to mention that the cost of owning a car runs from $400 - 1000 per year what with oil changes, tire changes, repairs and also depreciation (my last $3500 car lasted about 4 years of solid use which seems like $900 a year at best, not including when the timing chain broke and cost about $700 to tow and fix.)

[Raine]

43. self- delete ... posted in wrong place nt

[corpseratemedia]

44. they did not calculate

how much squirrel and cat truffles dogs recycle from the environment

[comtec]

45. This is total bullshit because Dog's are literally fed leftovers

stuff "not fit for human consumption"
literally scraps!
It's total BS because this is not food made ONLY for dogs. Dog food generally comes from random sources. The bits of the cows n pigs n chicken and HORSES that are not used for human food.

I feed my dog a mix of cereal and "meat"tm, along with whatever scraps I have off my table.

I love him dearly and the people who wrote this study can shove that report up..... well you get the idea.

I think this is just another BS report to try to excite people about the green debate.

however I doubt the science involved in this, because they are looking at all this land being needed to generate food ONLY for one dog. The reality is dog's get the left overs. Who actually kills an entire cow to make dog food?

Also the horses that go into dog food are usually unwanted race horses that are slaughtered, and somethign has to be done with their meat.

Gruesome as it sounds, that's the reality. I'd say very little is actually done to set aside mead for purely animal consumption. Some may, but the vast majority isn't.

This report damages the REAL science imho, that is behind calculating realistic carbon footprints.

but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. (give his dog another huggles and more scraps)

[GoCubsGo]

50. Thank you for pointing that out.

The authors of that study obviously never looked into what are "meat byproducts". That's what goes into dog and cat food, not the muscle meat, for the most part.

[Bonn1997]

109. Well that's what goes into the garbage low-price mainstream commercial dog foods. Granted, that's

what nearly all dog owners feed their dogs though.

[Kali]

77. no horse slaughter in the US anymore

and NOTHING wrong with good horse meat for pet food - probably a lot healthier than the beef or chicken that they get in most commercial food now.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. Stupid bullshit.

There are so many things this "report" is lacking. First, what is a "medium-sized" dog? How many are there as pets? Then, there is the number of 4X4s. What about the other data about other pets (the cats and 'humble' goldfish of which they speak)?

I don't know about New Zealand, but to drive 6,200 miles (10,000 kilometres) a year equates to 17 miles a day (6200/365=16.9) and the average commute to work in the US is 33 miles (as of 2005). That, of course, is driving there directly. Do the researchers numbers change to factor in stops, and sitting in traffic? OK, now, let's take the number of days a typical American may work, supposing it is a 9 to 5 job (5 days only), they take two weeks vacation (yeah, right), and get ten Federal holidays (and let's say, ten additional "holiday" days), that is equal to an American working = (365 days - 104 weekend days (Sat. & Sun.) = 261 days - 10 days of vacation = 251 days - 10 Federal holidays = 241 days - 10 additional holiday days/sick days) 231 days * 33 average miles commute = 7623 miles. That's a difference of 1,423 miles (above the estimation in the article). Not all those cars are 4X4s (another number left out of the equation) Now, factor in how many people only drive their cars to and from work and subtract them from those who use their cars to drive to the store, vacations, visits, school, and other destinations. I really doubt that the average car is driven less than 17 miles a day, by way of average, (6,200 miles/365 days = 16.9 miles per day).

I just used a bunch of numbers and facts and figures and what did it prove? It proves there are many factors needed to be involved in such a claim, many lacking from the article (haven't seen the study). Studies are based on averages. I can accept that as fact. What I cannot accept is lack of proof and this article is ripe with missing facts.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. Since I've got 8 dogs I'm just gonna go buy a hummer. Might as well go all out.

[whistler162]

48. Oh come on everyone knows.....

a SUV runs out of gas and a dog never runs out of gas!

As for the article GEEEEZZZZZ!!!

[Hepburn]

52. My Scottie does NOT eat scraps....

...sheesh, I cook for her every day ~~ at least two meals. Fresh boneless, skinless chicken breast, ground turkey, steamed veggies, some lentils, steamed rice, broth, whatever suits her fancy for that meal.

Scraps for Maggie? LOL...

[CBR]

56. My Boxer Abraham eats like Maggie --

baked chicken breasts/thighs, sausage, rice, eggs, pasta...

He loves it.

[kenny blankenship]

65. .

doh! wrong place

[blondeatlast]

75. As Iggy and the Stooges said...

"I Wasnna Be Your Dog!" :rofl:

[Hepburn]

79. Funny thing...

...I have had that said to me before! :hi:

[onenote]

53. this study seems to assume that the meat used to create dog food wouldn't otherwise exist

A considerable portion of the "meat" in dog food consists of meat by-products from animals harvested for other purposes, not merely to create dog food.

[Arkansas Granny]

98. That's where my thoughts were running, too. I have no figures, but I would guess

that the percentage of animals raised specifically to be used for dog food would be comparatively low.

[mainer]

54. You are braver than I am to post this

I've been saying this for years. And have since learned just to keep my mouth shut.

[Kalyke]

59. Dogs are living things - they would be here, regardless.

SUVs, on the other hand, would not be here unless pampered city dwellers with three+ kids who never even need to use the vehicles as originally intended hadn't requested them in massive numbers.

I don't buy that load of garbage.

[kenny blankenship]

69. They would be here at the level of wolves, coyotes, and foxes:

in far fewer numbers than they are with humans feeding them and breeding them.

I don't have a lot of time for the book's argument either. If people want to start to think seriously about environmental impact they have to address HUMAN overpopulation. I don't see any evidence that we're starting a collective effort to think seriously about global warming or other environmental catastrophes. For example, you could come up with a technological fix for global warming and we would still be on the verge of fishing out the world's oceans because there are too damn many of us. It's all pretty much at a level of "we want to be thought conscientious about things without really sacrificing anything."

[comtec]

72. The brutal reality is if you want to lower human's impact on the world...

nuke (gamma radiation works too and has a less lingering radiation) the 3rd world.
That is most of India, large portions of China, the middle east (that'll solve a LOT of war issues), and bits of south American.
That takes care of over population and holy wars - for the most part.

That would also free up money used to feed the 3rd world to go towards "green energy" research.

I didn't say it was a practical solution, but it has the novelty of being quick. It certainly isn't humane (in a way it is, POOF, no pain, just loads of death)

Of course that is an impossible problem isn't it.

The first world uses the majority of resources, but the 3rd world is where over population happens.

The 1st and 2nd world have relatively controlled population growth.

I never said it could happen. But that is the brutal reality, in all it's inhuman glory.

[Kalyke]

73. They would be here in fewer numbers, but they would still exist

in some form. Wild dogs -in their various forms - are older than humans. Candis first appear in the fossil record 37 million years ago. At best, Man has been here approximately 300,000 years ago.

Therefore, they have more "right" to be here than we do - if you're picking "first dibs." :)

However, I do agree that we need to focus more on human overpopulation and its effects. By taking time out to present studies on whether dogs have a bigger carbon footprint than "animal X" or whether cow farts add to the greenhouse gas level, we need to be focusing on lessening our dependence on fossil fuels, meats and religions that subjugate women for the sole purpose of reproduction.

[DemoTex]

61. I read this article to Nick and he just licked his butt.

[NYC_SKP]

80. Because he can...

May have had nothing to do with the article! :P

:donut:

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. Dogs are fed a lot of meat by-products left over from human kills

If all humans were vegetarians he would have a stronger case.

[comtec]

67. if humans were vegans dogs would go back to eating mice and rabbits

dogs are carnivores!

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. If humans were vegans global warming would not be this big a problem

...regardless of our pets - not to mention fewer people would then want carnivorous pets if we had to grow or catch animal food solely dedicated for them :)

[tammywammy]

63. I have a small SUV but I have cats, so that evens things out. n/t

[Stevenmarc]

64. I wonder how many times Robert and Brenda found a flaming bag a dog crap at their door

[kenny blankenship]

66. You should eat your children instead

You want to talk about carbon footprint?

[lukasahero]

68. It's important for us dog owners to understand the environmental impact

of our decisions, however, I'm not sure what some people on this thread would have us do - kill our dogs? Instead of rescuing my pup from a life of horror and abuse fending for herself on the streets of Puerto Rico, it sounds like some people here think the right thing to do would have just been to shoot her and reduce her carbon footprint.

The big elephant in the room this study ignores is that dogs are living, breathing, feeling creatures. They work for us, care for us, offer us comfort and protection. Their welfare is our responsibility.

Comparing a life to an inanimate object says more about the lack of humanity in the one who thinks such comparisons are reasonable than it does about the actual results of the study.

Edited to add: My husband and I plant at least half a dozen trees and shrubs a year on an already fully-wooded mostly-native acre and a half lot. We also grow our own vegetables. We do try to adjust our lifestyle to minimize our carbon footprint. I'd like to ask those who don't have dogs what steps they are taking to reduce their (and their children's) footprint?

[Barack_America]

70. Do the authors object to the carbon footprints of large predators living in the wild?

:shrug:

[RedCloud]

71. However a dog's love can save road trips to the shrink!

And my parrot too! he commands those dogs when to come in, sit down, eat. I swear he gets sadistic at times with them such as yesterday's encounter..

Parrot: Hey Lucky, come here.

Lucky:

Parrot: Come on girl

Lucky:

Parrot: You want some time to think about it?

[Stinky The Clown]

74. Why not take this logic to its logical conclusion? Get rid of all humans. We have giant carbon feet.

[NYC_SKP]

78. OMGZ!!11!!! Owning a Hamster Worse than Two Hummers and an RV!1!!!!11

According to Scientists paid by Exxon in a Truthy-sounding "Study" from New Zealand or Australia or Someplace Brainy-sounding!!!

[Taitertots]

81. Care about the environment only as far as it means you have to do absolutely nothing

Typical DU ecologists. Complain unceasingly about global warming, but refuse to even make the tiniest of sacrifice.

[lukasahero]

82. "the tiniest of sacrifice"?

First, which DUers would you be speaking to? Because I know at least I clearly posted what I am doing to reduce my entire family's carbon footprint.

Second, killing our dogs is a tiny sacrifice? Really? Get help.

[Taitertots]

83. When did I say you should kill your dog?

Please keep your hallucinations to yourself.

In 10-15 years all the domestic dogs will have died of natural causes. Just don't replace them.

[lukasahero]

101. Almost all "dogs" are domestic

Wolves and coyotes are not but they are not "dogs". What do think should happen to "wild" dogs? What do you think DOES happen to "wild" dogs?

[Bonn1997]

111. Most dogs are domestic but most are not pets

[HuckleB]

89. That is what is indicated by most of the responses.

No one wants to think about their own actions, it appears.

[mainer]

90. never get between a dog lover and his pet

Some of the most ardent vegetarians I know own multiple dogs -- none of whom are on vegetarian diets. It's just a case of cognitive dissonance.

I love dogs. I love cats. I just can't own a pet because of allergic hubby. So I think I'm able to be somewhat objective about the overall picture here. Although people love their dogs and rely on them for companionship, we simply have to be honest and admit that there's an ecological price for every privilege we humans grant ourselves, whether it's a car, a pet, air travel, or lettuce in January.

[lukasahero]

102. Talk about cognitive dissonance

What about your own life and its ecological price? People are the greatest threat to our environment and yet no one here is suggesting that we limit population growth or start selecting to get rid of 'less valuable' people.

Just because dogs aren't people doesn't limit their worth and right to life.

[Taitertots]

104. I think we should certainly start thinking about limiting population growth

There are certainly plenty of options for incentives to limit people to two children or less.

Dogs are not people. While I don't want anyone's existing dog to die, it would be a return to a more natural state to neuter all dogs and have them cease to exist.

If we are going to have a conversation about how we are going to create a society that is environmentally sustainable the last thing we should be concerned with is conserving novelty man made animals.

[lukasahero]

113. "have them cease to exist"

Wow. Who the fuck made you god?

[Taitertots]

115. Who made you god?

You want to preserve man made animals at the direct expense to natural animals.

[mainer]

117. Are you saying my life should be ended to be green?

You first.

And no one said dogs should be killed. Only that the keeping of dogs purely for HUMAN PLEASURE is part of why humans have such a large carbon footprint. The dog population has exploded for the selfish needs of humans.

[LWolf]

86. What is the annual human footprint?

I'm guessing it's more than a dog's.

With that kind of logic, we ought to be eating people.

[Desertrose]

92. See, that was my thought, too!

:hi:LWolf

[LWolf]

114. Hi, friend!

If I haven't run into you to mention it, I had a long, newsy email planned last summer, right before the electrical storm that fried my 'puter and lost my address book...send me a hello, and I'll spend some time catching up!

:hug:

[flvegan]

91. Every dog in our rescue is a vegetarian.

Simple fix.

[Critters2]

95. The beagle is vegan. Eats fewer animal products than I do.

When a parishioner gave me meat-based dog food left when her dog died, it gave the beagle a terrible case of colitis, even after switching her gradually. So, it's veggies and soy for her!!

[flvegan]

96. Awesome!

I can't afford the good vegan stuff (we go through roughly 40 lbs of food every 3 days). The B12 in the veggie food isn't vegan, IIRC. So close...so close.

[Critters2]

127. She eats Natural Balance Veg, canned and dry. The website

says it's a true vegan food. She likes the dry, and LOVES the canned. Her favorite treats are Mr. Pugsly's Peanut Butter Dog Biscuits, which are also vegan.

[SOS]

93. Which CO2 producer should face tougher emissions standards?

A:



B:

[pitohui]

99. no one is willing to make a personal sacrifice merely to save the earth NO ONE

i won't comment on the validity of the study or the cruelty of those who would say "let the dogs eat cake/go vegan"

i will merely point out that NO ONE is willing to make any personal sacrifice to save the earth

when al gore asked us all to buy the new kind of lightbulbs, we had whiners here saying the new lights gave them headaches and better the planet should die than they change their lightbulbs -- and that is just the tiniest of tiny sacrifices if it is even a sacrifice at all

no one will give up their dogs and cats, and there's a growing movement of hysterics who aren't even willing to see feral dogs/cats sacrificed -- hence the rise of the "no kill" shelters and the people who actually FEED feral cats and keep them in the environment

most people asked to make a choice between protecting the environment and an actual wild creature such as a songbird, and a feral cat...the overwhelming majority would rather help the cat

i despair for the human race, because the majority of people, while not admitting it, truly hate the wild and only care for domesticated animals and their relationship w. domesticated animals -- a wild natural animal free in its own environment, no, they've got no use for that

their actions speak, i'm tired of listening to their words

if you allow a cat to roam outside, all the words in the world don't make a difference -- your ACTIONS are killing wildlife and you really, truly just don't care, and i've already heard all the excuses, so don't even bother

it's far more than the carbon footprint, with outdoor/feral cats, the people who allow this are literally killing off the future generations of baby birds, small endangered rodents and lizards, and so on before they can even get out of the nest

i'm sick of it but i honestly don't expect any better from most people, it is not even worth discussing

[mainer]

100. good points all

esp. the cats/wild birds issue.

If we didn't feed and breed so many cats and dogs, there wouldn't be nearly as many of them. It's HUMAN action that has led to the exploding dog and cat population. Just as it's HUMAN action (wolf and coyote killing) that has led to exploding deer populations.

I think we should all just admit that we're a selfish species. Period. We want our cuddly widdle dogs and cats because they LOVE us so much. (and as humans, it's really all about us, isn't it? We keep pets because we need to be loved and adored and worshiped by our pets. If they were indifferent turkeys, we wouldn't go on and on so much about them. We'd just eat them.

.

[dysfunctional press]

105. since i'm 48- i only need the world to survive a few more decades, anyway.

at the most. :shrug:

personal sacrifice just isn't my..."thing".

[daleo]

120. I haven't owned a car for over ten years

I could easily afford one, and sometimes it feels like a bit of a sacrifice to not have one. I also own a small home rather than a large one.

[Strelnikov_]

103. Unh, what's that?

#1: Unh, what's that?
#2: Unh, dunno. Look like dog shit study.
#1: Enh? Feel.
#2: Unh, feel like dog shit study.
#1: Smell.
#2: HUH?
#1: SMELL!
#2: Unh, smell like dog shit study.
#1: Taste.
#2: Taste???
#1: Taste!

(tasting sounds)

#2: Unh, taste like dog shit study.
#1: Must be dog shit study. Good thing we no use for setting public policy and step in it

++++++++++++++

Thanks for posting, but not buying the Fido>>SUV numbers just yet.

[RagAss]

106. My dog will bite the ass of whomever wrote this article !

[Bozita]

116. +2 and one's a Rottie.

Both are rescue dogs.

[goldcanyonaz]

107. My dog weighs 206 lbs...

I wonder what his carbon pawprint is.

[dana_b]

110. yowza!!

what type pf pooch is he/she? A mastiff??

[goldcanyonaz]

112. Saint Bernard.

[Shagbark Hickory]

118. You can have the SUV but the dog stays.

[Meldread]

119. Disappointing at all the unrecs.

There are legitimate debatable issues with the study, but the fact is DOGS DO HAVE A CARBON FOOTPRINT. That is an undeniable fact. So do children.

I love dogs, but the fact of the matter is dogs are not carbon neutral. Neither are cats. No pet is carbon neutral, though some are better than others.

I think it is hypocritical and elitist to look down your nose at someone who drives a SUV, not wanting to give it up because they like it, and meanwhile popping out little rug rats and adopting puppies left and right.

If we want to become as carbon neutral as possible, it requires sacrifices from EVERYONE. That includes you, dear reader of this post. Not just SUV drivers.

[WT Fuheck]

121. Oh. You've met my dog.

[progressoid]

124. Don't shoot the messenger?!?1?

You dared to post an article that says dogs are worse than the hated SUV? I'd be surprised if you hadn't been alerted to be tombstoned.

[Lorien]

125. There's a simple answer:

http://dogsinthenews.com/issues/0209/articles/020918a.htm

[Bjorn Against]

126. This is not about dogs...

This study is not without merit but it is not dogs that are the problem, it is the corporate agri-business practices that are the problem and these same businesses practices are used to produce food for humans. This article is pointing the finger in the wrong direction, if we want to tackle this issue we can't pretend like dogs are at fault. The problem is not dogs the problem is humans, and more specifically the problem is the humans that run the factory farms.