An Article: Dogs are not environmentally friendly...!

[lupinfarm]

http://www.thestar.com/news/science...6581--man-s-best-friend-mankind-s-worst-enemy

I was less than impressed to read this bit of nonsense the other day when my dad sent it along. Unfortunately the entire piece implies that we feed our cats and dogs on whole cuts of beef, pork, chicken, etc. but rather our dog food and cat food is laden with the off cuts and byproducts of animal slaughter for our own needs not to mention in a lot of cases the byproduct of horse slaughter. I think what got me the most is that the "scientists" got rid of their cats because they weren't environmentally friendly, .. where did they go? The humane society because anywhere was better than with them, lets not forget they're still making an imprint if still alive.

I am disgusted that it would be suggested we put down our dogs and cats, horses, goats, llamas, etc (oh but wait, those animals, horses, goats, llamas, rabbits, etc. are okay!! They are vegetarian, NEVER MIND that it takes more land to keep them).

""The Star - A new book on sustainability suggests there is an environmental disaster lurking in your home. Maybe he's looking at you right now, tongue hanging out, waiting for you to put down the newspaper and take him for his morning walkies.

According to New Zealand-based researchers Robert and Brenda Vale, large household pets chew up more resources than over-sized cars. And they are ever-so-gently suggesting that you might want to get rid of them.

"We used to have lots of cats. But we've got to the point where we feel that we shouldn't," Robert Vale said Monday from Wellington. "It's quite sad. We were very fond of our cats."

The Vales lay down the uncomfortable facts in their new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living. Robert Vale isn't actually suggesting that you eat your dog. Not while he's still healthy at least. But you might want to "recycle" him when ... well, you know.

According to their figures, feeding a medium-sized dog for a year has twice the environmental impact of driving a luxury SUV for 10,000 kilometres.""



For the record it costs less to feed my dogs (all 6!) for a year than it does to feed my brother for a month.

 

[2dream]

All I have to say to the Vales is "HOGWASH"

Wonder how much GRANT MONEY they got to do that particular study?

 

[FarmerChick]

it probably is very true that the "pet category" uses very very many resources and does create extra strain in the way of products produced for pets.

I believe alot of the environmental impact of owning pets and producing and manufacturing for their "sometimes jacked up luxury" needs is true.

BUT---so what?

Pets are a business like any other. People want toys produced, vets available and all medical technologies available, they want food produced to feed their pets etc. etc. Thing is you can say it about ANYTHING that "uses" in this world.

Everything uses resources in this world. Pet industry is just like any other to me. Who cares what they say? Who will listen? Not many!

I would never say get rid of all pets because of environmental impact.

 

[patandchickens]

I dunno, if you look at what a lot of people do with their dogs, it *is* fairly nontrivial in use of energy and resources and creation of pollution etc. People buy an awful lot of stuff for some dogs, certainly an awful lot of stuff is *manufactured an shipped* for dogs, and I suspect a nontrivial amount of gasoline is consumed driving dogs around e.g. to somewhere better to romp.

As far as food goes, a lot of what goes into dogfood is *not* meat byproducts; much of it is heavily processed and also shipped halfway around the world; and what *is* local meat byproducts could have perfectly well been reprocessed into other things such as fertilizers.

Even if your dog subsists entirely on table scraps and woodchucks, those table scraps (at least <g>) could've gone to feed something 'useful' like hogs or chickens or been composted to improve soil fertility.

I do not think that people should get rid of their pets; I *do* think it is not such a bad thing to gently point out to people that pet ownership has nontrivial energetic and environmental impact in the world. Which is undeniably TRUE. Perhaps this will get people to consider their choices more carefully - about life in general. Which is clearly the authors' purpose - just to get people to think, and choose *knowingly*.

I have no idea where you guys are seeing that the authors of the book sent their cats to the humane society. It certainly isn't in the article. It sounded to me more like they simply did not *replace* cats they had that died, which is still not giving homes to cats but is not the same as *getting rid of* existing pets!


Pat

 

[2dream]

Maybe their research is accurate. Maybe not. And true the article does not say how they got rid of the cats one way or the other, however, it does sound to me like they "GOT RID OF". Not "just did not replace".

I agree with "Eating Academics". We can feed them to our pets.

Of all the things in this world that are "environmentally non-friendly" this research rates right up there at the top. Look at all the trees that were cut down to make the paper they wrote their book on. The electricity used to process the information. The gasoline used for the research. Probably jet trips across the world to conduct the research. I am guessing they used up quite a few resources themselves just to get to the point of publishing this new book. And why? To make money or a name for themselves would be my first guess.

So while my pet may not be very environementally friendly I am guessing that he uses less resources in a year than those folks.

I will agree that its possible they are just trying to get people to make better decisions. And I will also agree that there are lots of people out there that NEED to.

And yes there is millions of dollars made annually on non-essential item sales for pets. And yes those items use up resources. As well as toys for children, and non-essential clothing, luxury cars, non-essential home items, etc, etc, etc.
The list is long and ongoing.

PS - The picture of the dog could easily be my big brown shedded hair producing, resoure eating, useless as a guard dog, has no clue he is a dog PET. My chickens also are not laying right now. And even though they are fairly non productive at this point and using up resources, I think I will keep them too.

 

[FarmerChick]

I hear you 2dream

when we "micro" pick apart society, we lose.

everyone loses.

when we "face real problems" on huge scales it might make a big difference.

like getting the info out there about pets might be "worth" the use of resources to slow down a bigger problem.

I don't know....we all will lose eventually and some person will always "micro process" life in general on paper.

Ugh

 

[Wifezilla]

Wonder if these people are connected to PETA. That may sound counter-intuitive, but PETA would rather kill all pets than have them live as "our slaves". PETA has been caught killing pets turned it to them for "rescue" more than once.

 

[Big Daddy]

Well they should have listed the impact that domestic pets have on the well being of their owner. I think any footprint they leave is more than offset by the good they do. It does make you wonder why they commission studies like that.

 

[sylvie]

Well they should have listed the impact that domestic pets have on the well being of their owner. I think any footprint they leave is more than offset by the good they do. It does make you wonder why they commission studies like that.

Therapy dogs used in hospitals and nursing homes are in this well- being category.
I wonder who pushed for the commission of this study. Who stands to benefit most from the results of this?
I am a dog owner, love dogs.

 

[xpc]

I will first say this - I have not had the time to read all the posts (bull roar), read them all or don't respond.

Dogs. cats, or pets are not about the food you give them, though some are converted from kill shelter to kibbles.

Their pure companionship is worth all the money in the world, ok maybe not the megabucks but at least $20 and found.