Australian Study: Pet Dogs Are Climate Villains
First they came for humans and cows. Now dogs.
Earlier today, I came across this outrageous headline from progressive outlet Mother Jones suggesting dogs are bad for the environment.
The publication cited a Pacific Conservation Biology study, out of Australia, that examined the “harmful” impacts of pet dogs. I wish I were kidding.
Titled “Bad dog? The environmental effects of owned dogs,” here’s the study’s abstract:
Dogs as owned pet animals are globally ubiquitous and numerous. While the impact of cats, both feral and owned, on biodiversity has been relatively well-studied, by contrast, the comparative effect of owned dogs has been poorly acknowledged. As the commonest large carnivore in the world, the environmental impacts of owned dogs are extensive and multifarious: they are implicated in direct killing and disturbance of multiple species, particularly shore birds, but also their mere presence, even when leashed, can disturb birds and mammals, causing them to leave areas where dogs are exercised. Furthermore, scent traces and urine and faeces left by dogs can continue to have this effect even when dogs are not present. Faeces and urine can transfer zoonoses to wildlife and, when accumulated, can pollute waterways and impact plant growth. Owned dogs that enter waterways contribute to toxic pollution through wash-off of chemical ectoparasite treatment applications. Finally, the sheer number of dogs contributes to global carbon emissions and land and fresh water use via the pet food industry. We argue that the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognised.
These Malthusian rewilders, or radical preservationists, need a new scapegoat because their policies are falling out of favor here in the U.S. and beyond.
What about working dogs who help ranchers, who are actual conservationists? How about working dogs that help stop poaching efforts here and abroad? Or hunting dogs that flush wild game and assist hunters with conservation efforts?
I just recorded my thoughts on this “study” for District of Conservation that I hope you listen to and share:
There is obviously no consideration of this. Very telling from an Australian study.
Abundance - or true conservation - is where environmentalism should be headed. Ridding of dogs, like ridding of humans or cows, is counterproductive.
My two cents.
Come after my dogs and I will exercise my 2a.
There's a type of person who is annoyed by happiness in others, and offended by any form of human flourishing. That's the modern Left in a nutshell