Indeed. This is reductivism - which is anathema to true conservation. If you call for people to sacrifice in the name of the planet, you don't care about the planet in the long run.
I've said it many times: The hard kernel of the Green movement does not like their fellow humans very much, and wishes they would go away. This also applies to the Left.
great piece, ma'am. thank you. this so-called "paper" is a perfect example of decision-based evidence making. It is interesting how the authors completely ignore the fact that dogs are part of the environment and thus deserving of the same treatment as elephants or wolves or giraffes. As a hunter, you know that the search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions.
Correct. I explained on the podcast how dogs are important to conservation efforts too for ranching, hunting, and even anti-poaching efforts. Thanks for the comment!
Pets can also have positive effects on the environment this study did not present anything to counterbalance their negative effects. I also think findings like this can be used by the anti environmentalists to turn the public off the movement. If we would only spay and neuter that would go along way https://www.govloop.com/community/blog/a-new-approach-to-pet-overpopulation-framing-fidos-fertility/
Dogs also play a role in conservation efforts to deter aggressive wolves, fight poaching, and for sporting/retrieving. Preservationist environmentalists are anti-human, anti-living creatures.
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
Indeed. This is reductivism - which is anathema to true conservation. If you call for people to sacrifice in the name of the planet, you don't care about the planet in the long run.
I've said it many times: The hard kernel of the Green movement does not like their fellow humans very much, and wishes they would go away. This also applies to the Left.
Sadly, yes.
great piece, ma'am. thank you. this so-called "paper" is a perfect example of decision-based evidence making. It is interesting how the authors completely ignore the fact that dogs are part of the environment and thus deserving of the same treatment as elephants or wolves or giraffes. As a hunter, you know that the search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions.
Correct. I explained on the podcast how dogs are important to conservation efforts too for ranching, hunting, and even anti-poaching efforts. Thanks for the comment!
Well now I'm gonna start saying, "Who's a good villain? Are you the bestest villain?"
Haha. This study is so unhinged.
The Kiwis plowed this particular field 15 years ago: https://phys.org/news/2009-11-dogs-larger-carbon-footprint-suv.html
Huh
Pets can also have positive effects on the environment this study did not present anything to counterbalance their negative effects. I also think findings like this can be used by the anti environmentalists to turn the public off the movement. If we would only spay and neuter that would go along way https://www.govloop.com/community/blog/a-new-approach-to-pet-overpopulation-framing-fidos-fertility/
Dogs also play a role in conservation efforts to deter aggressive wolves, fight poaching, and for sporting/retrieving. Preservationist environmentalists are anti-human, anti-living creatures.