• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bad News for Man’s Best Friend: Dogs Are Environmental Villains

InWalkedBud

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2024
Messages
563
Reaction score
549
Gender
Male
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.
 
When Charlie was a puppy his farts had approximately the carbon footprint of a coal plant.
 
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.
Where I live if your dog is seen chasing deer it's liable to be shot. Everyone understands this.
 
Where I live if your dog is seen chasing deer it's liable to be shot. Everyone understands this.
I grew up on a farm. A strange dog on a farmer's property usually met a bad end.
 
I think the point of the article is being missed here, which isn't to paint dogs or their owners as villains but to raise awareness on an often-overlooked issue with some pretty reasonable suggestions for how we can address it:

“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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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):

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.

Wow, so radical....
 
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.
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.
 
A bit late to the game.............

 
tumblr_p4xfmjTrPE1qg51mgo1_500.jpg
 
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.
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?
Oh please do proceed. Add cats as well.

I grew up and there always was at least one dog in the house.
A house is just a house, put a dog in it, and it becomes a home.

The famous quote 'Dogs are some of the best people I know' is true.
 
Back
Top Bottom