Med/Large dogs impact global warming

[Hypancistrus]

With the python ban making big news on our reptile fronts, a new report just came out regarding the "carbon footprint" of medium and large sized dogs.

Check it.

First it was pet "non-native species", then it was pet pythons & boas, and now it's medium and large sized dogs ... And maybe even more. The first shot has been fired in what will surely be a campaign by those opposed to keeping animals as pets to call for bans on medium and large sized dogs in the name of saving the world from global warming.

In a report published in a journal call "New Scientist" Robert and Brenda Vale declare that medium and large sized dogs have almost twice the carbon "footprint" as a large SUV. They go on to claim that smaller dogs, cats, parakeets, and even hamsters have a substantially negative influence on global warming.

"This kind of analysis appeals to David Mackay, a physicist at the University of Cambridge and the UK government's new energy adviser. He believes we should put as much thought into choosing a pet as we do into buying a car."

A car? Really? Then what .... Children maybe? How "green" is a family of five compared to a single physicist living in his parents basement?
This is yet another example of the same perversion of science used to claim that global warming will allow pet pythons & boas to "invade" 1/3 of the United States. Enough is enough.

It's important that discussions that attempt to link pets to politically heated topics like global warming are watched closely. It's even more important that pet owners are aware of the moves that are being made quietly within the scientific community that will inevitably provide special interest animal rights groups with the ammunition they need to advocate legislation that hurts pet owners.

From this blog: Global Warming Could Mean No More Pets | NatPET Blog

Here is another report of the same study: Dogs Have Bigger Carbon Footprint Than SUVs | Drudge Retort

People laugh when I say that everyone needs to care about an attempt to ban one species or type of pet... even if they don't keep that particular type. These maniacs will NOT give up.

 

[Sharpie]

That 'report' has been out for several months now. It's just as cooky as people who refuse to have pets at all for fear of 'enslaving' them. I agree though, every avenue needs to be watched. I don't want PETA or HSUS to gain anymore ground on their anti-pet agenda than they already have.

 

[PerfectlyParrot]

So how does a "pet" make a larger carbon footprint than an animal living in the wild?

 

[Sharpie]

I have no doubt that pets do have a larger carbon footprint than wild animals. Just think of all the growing of the animals and grains that go into pet food, shipping the ingredients (sometimes across the planet), processing them, and then shipping it to stores all over, then driving to get it and so forth. And that's just food! Think of all the leashes and beds and blankets, and cages or crates, perches, toys, and then vet care, medications, etc. Pets are a luxury, just like SUVs. But they're a living luxury that I happen to like very much.

 

[SkyBaby]

PETA is anti animal. Not just anti-pet.

 

[PerfectlyParrot]

Okay Sharpie, when I read that I was like DUH! Must not have had enough caffeine at the time lol. Just couldn't wrap my head around the stupidity of it all.

 

[Hankmacaw]

These folks have way too much time on their hands to sit around and dream up disasters. They need a pet to keep them busy and out of my life.
ML

 

[RandomWiktor]

People noting the environmental impact of companion animals is very old news; they simply have recently tacked it on to the global warming hysteria to further their agenda. There was a book published I think way back in the 70's or 80's - I own it, somewhere - all about how dogs and cats further our impact on the environment, absorb resources that could be better alocated to humans, spread disease (especially in the third world), etc.

Regardless of if we like it or not, it is a truthful point. Domesticated animals, be they a dog, bird, reptile, or fish, further out impact on the environment in a myriad of ways. Some do it indirectly via increased consumption of food, electricity, water, etc. Others do it VERY directly, such as removing wildlife for the pet trade, spreading disease to wildlife, or killing wildlife.

Does that mean we should get rid of all companion animals? No, I'm pretty sure they're very low on the totem pole of "stuff we are doing that is utterly decimating the natural world." Should we maybe avoid pet keeping practices that are very blatantly outright harmful, like massively over-collecting CITES-listed species like the emperor scorpion, poaching corals & tropical fish, letting free-roaming unvaccinated dogs and cats decimate wildlife, releasing exotics, etc.? Yeah, definitely.

 

[Birdlover]

These folks have way too much time on their hands to sit around and dream up disasters. They need a pet to keep them busy and out of my life.
ML

 

[bizzymum]

The only footprints I am worried about with my large dogs, are the muddy foot prints they leave on the floor after a rainy day.

 

[Ranyart]