- Joined
- Sep 9, 2024
- Messages
- 582
- Reaction score
- 561
- Gender
- Male
Where I live if your dog is seen chasing deer it's liable to be shot. Everyone understands this.Link: Bad News for Man’s Best Friend: Dogs Are Environmental Villains
...the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognised...
To be fair, the nanny-state totalitarians at MotherJones are principally irked at dog owners, and want Big Bro to crack down on all of us. Because reasons. Speaking for myself, I'd rather live in a world full of dogs, than suffer the company of even one lefty loser who preaches the gospel of MotherJones.
I grew up on a farm. A strange dog on a farmer's property usually met a bad end.Where I live if your dog is seen chasing deer it's liable to be shot. Everyone understands this.
“Although we’ve pointed out these issues with dogs in natural environments…there is that other balancing side, which is that people will probably go out and really enjoy the environment around them—and perhaps feel more protective about it—because they’re out there walking their dog in it.”
Angelika von Sanden, a trauma therapist and the author of Sit Stay Grow: How Dogs Can Help You Worry Less and Walk into a Better Future, said she had observed that for many clients the companionship of a dog was often “literally the only reason to survive, to get up, to still keep going”.
“It gives them a reason to get up, a reason to get out, a reason to move around and be in contact a little bit with the world outside,” she said. “Dog owners can get a bad name if they are not aware of the surroundings they are in and of other people around them.”
A simple way to mitigate against the worst impacts was to keep dogs leashed in areas where restrictions apply and to maintain a buffer distance from nesting or roosting shorebirds, the paper suggested.
“A lot of what we’re talking about can be ameliorated by owners’ behavior,” Bateman said, pointing out that low compliance with leash laws was a problem.
“Maybe, in some parts of the world, we actually need to consider some slightly more robust laws.”
The review’s lead author, Prof Bill Bateman of Curtin University, said the research did not intend to be “censorious” but aimed to raise awareness of the environmental impacts of man’s best friend, with whom humans’ domestic relationship dates back several millennia.
I could not care less about MotherJones, but to the bolded; I'd rather live in a world full of dogs, than suffer the company of even one magat.Link: Bad News for Man’s Best Friend: Dogs Are Environmental Villains
...the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognised...
To be fair, the nanny-state totalitarians at MotherJones are principally irked at dog owners, and want Big Bro to crack down on all of us. Because reasons. Speaking for myself, I'd rather live in a world full of dogs, than suffer the company of even one lefty loser who preaches the gospel of MotherJones.
Did you intentionally lie, or did you just not read the actual article you yourself linked to? At no point does the article(which actually comes from The Guardian) call for any actions whatsoever, and this is as close as it gets(right after going on at much greater length about the benefits of dogs):To be fair, the nanny-state totalitarians at MotherJones are principally irked at dog owners, and want Big Bro to crack down on all of us.
A simple way to mitigate against the worst impacts was to keep dogs leashed in areas where restrictions apply and to maintain a buffer distance from nesting or roosting shorebirds, the paper suggested.
“A lot of what we’re talking about can be ameliorated by owners’ behavior,” Bateman said, pointing out that low compliance with leash laws was a problem.
“Maybe, in some parts of the world, we actually need to consider some slightly more robust laws.”
He suggested that dog exclusion zones might be more suitable in some areas.
Bateman also raised sustainable dog food as an option to reduce a pet’s environmental paw print, noting however that “more sustainable dog food tends to cost more than the cheap dog food that we buy which has a higher carbon footprint.”
“If nothing else, pick up your own dog shit,” he said.
I totally agree. The neighborhood I just moved from in Georgia has many families who had way too many dogs and they let them run loose in the streets. Animal Control was a constant presence, because there is a leash law in that county, and these poor babies would frequently get hit by cars. Just horrible. There's a serious problem when the county has to limit the number of dogs per household, but that problem is a direct result of lack of owner responsibility, it's certainly not the fault of these dogs.I like dogs.
It is not the dogs themselves I have a problem with, it is more some of the owners who do not seem able or care how well they train or treat their dogs.
Many of the suburbs in the metro area I live in have started putting restrictions on the number of dogs one household can legally own.
I do not have a problem with that at all.
Is this going to be the left's next 'shove down your throat' campaign, complete with endless preaching, talking down to, derision of those who disagree?Link: Bad News for Man’s Best Friend: Dogs Are Environmental Villains
...the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognised...
To be fair, the nanny-state totalitarians at MotherJones are principally irked at dog owners, and want Big Bro to crack down on all of us. Because reasons. Speaking for myself, I'd rather live in a world full of dogs, than suffer the company of even one lefty loser who preaches the gospel of MotherJones.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?