Dogs...worse for the environment then, SUVs?

[russianrocket]

Time to get rid of your dogs : D

Reduce your dog's carbon pawprint - CNN.com

[BillyTheAdult]

A dog loves you, an suv does not. Any article that suggest that a dog can be fed a balanced diet by feeding it locally grown vegetables, is written by someone who knows nothing about a dogs nutritional needs, vet or not. A dog is a carnivore by nature and no amount of vegetable mixing will ever change that or will ever provide a sufficient diet to an animal that requires primarily meat to live a healthy life. There is no way I would ever consider not being a dog owner for even a second. A living thing is not even remotely comparable to a car. It is not even an accurate comparison because it says an suv driven 10,000 miles. 20,000 miles a year is a pretty average amount of driving, but the life of a dog is about 15 years. So the conclusion of this article a dog pollutes more in 15 years than an suv does in 6 months. *gasp*

[beast]

In other news, kids are harmful to the environment; stop breeding, people!

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Time to get rid of your dogs : D

Reduce your dog's carbon pawprint - CNN.com

Personally I'd rather have a dog than an SUV. Gas prices are insane.

But I will give you that it's much easier to attach to a car than a living being, because living beings die. I don't mean that in a snarky way. Hugs to you. Reach out and touch someone, RR.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi

Personally I'd rather have a dog than an SUV. Gas prices are insane.

But I will give you that it's much easier to attach to a car than a living being, because living beings die. I don't mean that in a snarky way. Hugs to you. Reach out and touch someone, RR.

Easier to attach to a car then a living being? I'm a car guy. My car puts SUV's to shame, and my business is making car parts... and even I don't agree with that. I'm attached to my car, but if I crashed it, I'd just get a new one and barely flinch.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by BillyTheAdult

A dog loves you, an suv does not. Any article that suggest that a dog can be fed a balanced diet by feeding it locally grown vegetables, is written by someone who knows nothing about a dogs nutritional needs, vet or not. A dog is a carnivore by nature and no amount of vegetable mixing will ever change that or will ever provide a sufficient diet to an animal that requires primarily meat to live a healthy life. There is no way I would ever consider not being a dog owner for even a second. A living thing is not even remotely comparable to a car. It is not even an accurate comparison because it says an suv driven 10,000 miles. 20,000 miles a year is a pretty average amount of driving, but the life of a dog is about 15 years. So the conclusion of this article a dog pollutes more in 15 years than an suv does in 6 months. *gasp*

I've known people who have had cars longer then I've been alive. My neighbor drives 5000 miles a year, and is attached to his car. I drive 12,000 miles a year, and I drive A LOT. the average person driving 20,000 miles? No, not the average amount of driving. A car can, and will outlast a dog, if you take care of it, and a dog will die pretty quick if you don't take care of it.

There is no way I'd ever consider not being a gas guzzling car owner : D it really does work both ways.

And, really, I posted the link cause I thought the premise was funny, and not out of agreement. And it also spit in the face of people who scoff me for my vehicle decision, while owning dogs. BIG, and MULTIPLE dogs at that.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by beast

In other news, kids are harmful to the environment; stop breeding, people!

This, I actually agree with lol.

it says I can't give you any rep points

[jawillie]

I have both.

As long as they keep breeding dogs, they need homes....

As long as I live in MN, I will have a four wheel drive. I see those little cars flying into the ditch and getting stuck at intersections, no thanks. We had one of the snowiest winters ever in MN this year. It's just practical to have a car that is safe. Little electric cars don't cut it in three feet of slush and ice.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by jawillie

I have both.

As long as they keep breeding dogs, they need homes....

As long as they keep buying dogs, they need to be bred : D

As long as they make SUVs , they need garages...

[Hemlock]

Anyone seen the captain planet episode about not having many kids? I laughed so much when I saw it.

YouTube - Captain Planet - Small Families

But beast, captain planet agrees with you, so you must be right.

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

As long as they keep buying dogs, they need to be bred : D

As long as they make SUVs , they need garages...

chicken/egg argument, I guess. I cannot let any animal or SUV suffer...

I don't get the radicalness behind such articles. Some of the info in it was common sense and I do already. Some of the other stuff is laughable.

So we should kill every living thing because everything has an impact on the environment? Where do we go next?? Let's just stop life..... stop it all..... then what? All move out of our houses (and do what with them exactly) so we can walk barefoot in the woods eating leaves? Some of the "eco-green" stuff is just another form of people getting radical in my opinion.

[BillyTheAdult]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I've known people who have had cars longer then I've been alive. My neighbor drives 5000 miles a year, and is attached to his car. I drive 12,000 miles a year, and I drive A LOT. the average person driving 20,000 miles? No, not the average amount of driving. A car can, and will outlast a dog, if you take care of it, and a dog will die pretty quick if you don't take care of it.

There is no way I'd ever consider not being a gas guzzling car owner : D it really does work both ways.

And, really, I posted the link cause I thought the premise was funny, and not out of agreement. And it also spit in the face of people who scoff me for my vehicle decision, while owning dogs. BIG, and MULTIPLE dogs at that.

The actual point is the article actually states a medium sized dog, pollutes more (it doesn't say a length of time, so I assume over a lifetime) as an SUV being driven 10,000 miles. Dogs live about 15 years give or take. Even on the low end of driving, using your figure of 12,000 miles which is below the national average of 15,000 miles a year driven by Americans according to the NHTSA, that is under a years worth of driving for the lifetime of one dog.

I agree that some people here are overly pc, but posting the article without the context of the explanation you provided above, I don't what you expected. But anyway my real point is that the article states, driving an suv 10,000 = one medium dog. 15,000 miles a year over 15 years is 225,000 miles and would be the figure needed to do an accurate comparison of the environmental impact, which is the articles fault not yours.

[aelle]

Wow, if there was one person on this board I did not expect to argue against meat consumption for environmental reasons, it's Russian Rocket

Originally Posted by russianrocket

As long as they keep buying dogs, they need to be bred : D

How do free dogs from shelters or from the pound fit into your logic? Do you think the environmental benefits of euthanising a dog ethically outweigh adopting a dog and saving it from the needle?

[elucidate]

Ordinarily I would agree with you here, except that I have lived with a lady who fed her dogs food she mixes herself, which is made up of raw vegetables and pasta, sometimes rice...with a bone for breakfast to chew on, though it had very little meat traces on it from memory...purely for their teeth...and those dogs were very healthy, shiny coats, lots of energy and happy as larry (except one of them did seem to have anxiety issues?)

She had done lots of research about this and was strict vego herself.I never would have believed it if I hadn't experienced living with them for 7 months, but these dogs really did manage quite well on little to no meat.

Originally Posted by BillyTheAdult

A dog loves you, an suv does not. Any article that suggest that a dog can be fed a balanced diet by feeding it locally grown vegetables, is written by someone who knows nothing about a dogs nutritional needs, vet or not. A dog is a carnivore by nature and no amount of vegetable mixing will ever change that or will ever provide a sufficient diet to an animal that requires primarily meat to live a healthy life. There is no way I would ever consider not being a dog owner for even a second. A living thing is not even remotely comparable to a car. It is not even an accurate comparison because it says an suv driven 10,000 miles. 20,000 miles a year is a pretty average amount of driving, but the life of a dog is about 15 years. So the conclusion of this article a dog pollutes more in 15 years than an suv does in 6 months. *gasp*

[BillyTheAdult]

I currently work in a pet supply store, and as part of my job I have an ongoing education about everything pets including the best foods for them to eat, and a vegetable diet is not what a dog needs. Not that one couldn't survive on one but it is not the proper diet for a dog. I could live on candy, but it wouldn't be what's good for me. Not that I doubt your story at all, exceptions can be found for everything.

[elucidate]

I think dogs are meant to eat meat as well, but this seemed to be an exceptional case.

Then again, she also believed that Paul McCartney was cool for forcing his vegetarianism on his roadies whilst on tour. He MADE them eat strictly vego food while they worked 12+ hour shifts for him!

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by jawillie

chicken/egg argument, I guess. I cannot let any animal or SUV suffer...

I don't get the radicalness behind such articles. Some of the info in it was common sense and I do already. Some of the other stuff is laughable.

So we should kill every living thing because everything has an impact on the environment? Where do we go next?? Let's just stop life..... stop it all..... then what? All move out of our houses (and do what with them exactly) so we can walk barefoot in the woods eating leaves? Some of the "eco-green" stuff is just another form of people getting radical in my opinion.

eh lol I don't know if that would constitute a chicken egg argument. Need and supply is a whole different ball game .

If everyone stopped wanting dogs, wouldn't people stop breeding them, and wouldn't it also lead to less dogs? People couldn't afford SUV's and big trucks anymore, due to gas prices, so they stopped producing them, and in came hybrids and smart cars. Remember smart cars? Those things came out of favor, and were orphans and no one wanted to buy the ones they put $100 down on.

Now, lets remember that I posted the article as a lark. Not as any type of seriousness. But, I have fun debating, so I'll continue playing the debils advocate

People who do care about the environment, and berate people for it, probably should not have dogs. Should avoid having children. Etc etc etc. Makes sense, doesn't it? Eco people, after all, want us to move out on dirt, grow our own food, and not be dependent on fossil fuels, right?

Yes, eco green people IS a form of being radical. A hell of a lot more radical then wanting to drive an SUV.











( ps, the egg came first )

[elucidate]

Dogs aren't meant to live in the cities anyway. It's cruel for the dogs to keep them in enclosed areas, and with only concrete streets to be walked along on a leash.

Yes, there are parks that dog walkers can take them to, I just get sad when I see dogs chained outside bars and pubs here, while their master is getting drunk, left alone for hours at a time, bored out of their brains and no water.

It's not just bad for the environment, it's bad for the dogs.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by aelle

Wow, if there was one person on this board I did not expect to argue against meat consumption for environmental reasons, it's Russian Rocket



How do free dogs from shelters or from the pound fit into your logic? Do you think the environmental benefits of euthanising a dog ethically outweigh adopting a dog and saving it from the needle?

You aren't arguing with me against meat consumption, for environment, or any other reasons : D. Tho, I do advocate eating less of it, and much higher qualities, which in turn would also require less of it. But that's neither here nor there.

As far as dogs. Well, granted, I'm an animal lover, but I'm also a meat eater. I don't really discriminate against one animal and not another. I don't not eat dogs because they are pets or loved ones. To me, an animal is an animal, no matter how you breed or train them. So, I can't look at cows being slaughtered for my food, and see it as ok, while looking at dogs and thinking they should all live. I just can't compartmentalize that way. Never have, never will.

We created the situation of domesticated animals. We bred them from wolves, to the now thousands of breeds. We created them to be the way they are today. They didn't magically just appear on this planet being our pets and not wanting to eat us. Shouldn't we also be responsible in coraling that situation?

And, again, not to sound callous, but I don't see a lack of ethics in euthanizing a dog. I see a lack of ethics in propagating an over population of dogs. It's also not MY logic that it would need to fit into. My " if no one buys dogs, they won't be bred" was meant in jest with Jawillie. While I do believe that if people stopped wanting dogs, there wouldn't be as many bred, it's not a logic that balances out, or needs to balance out the dogs that happen to be in pounds and shelters. There are a lot of variables and things that can be done. A license to own a non spayed dog perhaps? Etc etc

If we start anywhere, we need to start by making it easier to adopt HUMANS. People tend to replace human love, with animal love, if they aren't able to have a kid and adopt. Now, you have less need for dogs.

And to finish it off, I really couldn't care less about dogs effects on the environment lol . I also don't hold very many opinions on the dog situation in general. If it comes up, I have talking points and ideas, but, aside from that, it rarely enters my field of thought.

What enters my field of thought, is eco people looking down on me for my car choice, which obviously means that the thoughts that cross my mind will be anything that refutes or puts a negative light on any argument that directly is against my life choices.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Hemlock

Anyone seen the captain planet episode about not having many kids? I laughed so much when I saw it.

YouTube - Captain Planet - Small Families

But beast, captain planet agrees with you, so you must be right.

Captain planet population control PSA!!! that's awesome!!

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by BillyTheAdult

The actual point is the article actually states a medium sized dog, pollutes more (it doesn't say a length of time, so I assume over a lifetime) as an SUV being driven 10,000 miles. Dogs live about 15 years give or take. Even on the low end of driving, using your figure of 12,000 miles which is below the national average of 15,000 miles a year driven by Americans according to the NHTSA, that is under a years worth of driving for the lifetime of one dog.

I agree that some people here are overly pc, but posting the article without the context of the explanation you provided above, I don't what you expected. But anyway my real point is that the article states, driving an suv 10,000 = one medium dog. 15,000 miles a year over 15 years is 225,000 miles and would be the figure needed to do an accurate comparison of the environmental impact, which is the articles fault not yours.

Don't assume. First thing I learned from my parents. Who says I expected anything? Who says I even read the article before posting it? lol . It's not for me to interpret an article for others, or tell people what to perceive. I post, you read, you decide, period. The article doesn't say life time.

The article is pretty quick when it comes to describing the situation. But, when you are comparing two things, don't jump to those types of conclusions.

The authors claim that keeping a medium-sized dog has the same ecological impact as driving a 4.6 litre Land Cruiser 10,000km a year.

They use a rather unusual method of calculating environmental impact.

Instead of measuring emissions of CO2, or CO2 equivalent, they calculate the literal footprint or "global hectare" (gha) - the amount of land it takes to support a given activity.

So they work out that constructing and driving the Land Cruiser for a year takes 0.41 gha.

Growing and manufacturing the 164kg of meat and 95kg of cereals a border collie or cocker spaniel eats every year takes about 0.84 gha.

A bigger dog such as a German shepherd consumes even more - its pawprint is more like 1.1 gha.

[Andrew Brunelle]

It's kind of funny. A lot of vegans and animal lovers, not to mention eco-conscious people, have pets. A dog and a cat are carnivores no matter what, meaning they thrive on meat and other animal products, not vegetables and fruits. Sure, not eating meat is a great thing for the environment, but having a pet almost negates it. Sure, it's not as bad as eating 50 or more dead animal carcasses, but it is sure worse than just eating vegan, at least when it comes to the environment.

Some people use their pets as emotional support or for loneliness, and I feel that it is a form of exploitation in some cases. The dog or cat or whatever is being used as a surrogate human being. I don't think the dogs and cats should simply be killed either. It's just we've bred way too many of them and they need to be brought down in population. And I don't thin neutering is a good idea, but rewilding dogs is because they will be forced to live in balance, although putting them in an urban setting could be dangerous, so perhaps the wilderness??

There is no good solution that is immediate, but a gradual lessening of dogs and cats as pets, and a more rewilding approach could work over a few decades, although there are many here and otherwise that would object, but when it comes to resource consumption, pets are not guiltless, although their guilt stems from their owners.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

You aren't arguing with me against meat consumption, for environment, or any other reasons : D. Tho, I do advocate eating less of it, and much higher qualities, which in turn would also require less of it. But that's neither here nor there.

You aren't? You are posting an article that argues just that - that dogs have a big environmental footprint because they consume meat. Do you not support the views of the article you shared?

Originally Posted by russianrocket

As far as dogs. Well, granted, I'm an animal lover, but I'm also a meat eater. I don't really discriminate against one animal and not another. I don't not eat dogs because they are pets or loved ones. To me, an animal is an animal, no matter how you breed or train them. So, I can't look at cows being slaughtered for my food, and see it as ok, while looking at dogs and thinking they should all live. I just can't compartmentalize that way. Never have, never will.

But dogs aren't being slaughtered for meat or hide. They're being put down because their caretaker abandonned them. I don't think it's an irrational comparmentalization to differentiate between a useful death and a senseless death.


(For the record, I live in a country where dogs are being bred for meat...)

Originally Posted by russianrocket

We created the situation of domesticated animals. We bred them from wolves, to the now thousands of breeds. We created them to be the way they are today. They didn't magically just appear on this planet being our pets and not wanting to eat us. Shouldn't we also be responsible in coraling that situation?

And, again, not to sound callous, but I don't see a lack of ethics in euthanizing a dog. I see a lack of ethics in propagating an over population of dogs. It's also not MY logic that it would need to fit into. My " if no one buys dogs, they won't be bred" was meant in jest with Jawillie. While I do believe that if people stopped wanting dogs, there wouldn't be as many bred, it's not a logic that balances out, or needs to balance out the dogs that happen to be in pounds and shelters. There are a lot of variables and things that can be done. A license to own a non spayed dog perhaps? Etc etc

Yes, absolutely, we are responsible for the dog population, as all domesticated animals. I do think it's unethical to put down an animal for no more reason than "his owner got bored". My stance is that we should massively spay and neuter, including feral populations, AND adopt out shelter populations. I am undecided on the question of responsible breeding, theoretically, but I think that as long as we have an out-of-control shelter population, including puppies, including purebreds, including highly trainable dogs who can become help dogs, search and rescue dogs, working dogs, the breeding question is irrelevant.

That said, clearly the production of dogs doesn't respond to the laws of offer and demand - the supply largely outnumbers the demand, hence the high euthanization numbers. A lot of people don't purposefully breed their dogs for money, they just think it'd be cool to stud their dog just once, or they didn't realize how young their ***** would be in heat, or they didn't think their dog could get out of the garden...

Originally Posted by russianrocket

If we start anywhere, we need to start by making it easier to adopt HUMANS. People tend to replace human love, with animal love, if they aren't able to have a kid and adopt. Now, you have less need for dogs.

Wow, considering the hugely irresponsible pet owners out there, I would hate for it to be so easy to replace a dog with a kid! I do think that adoption should be made easier (with no restriction of race or sexual orientation, for one thing), but I think it's a different issue than pet ownership. A dog and a kid represent very different responsibilities, commitments, costs, relationships and rewards.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

And to finish it off, I really couldn't care less about dogs effects on the environment lol . I also don't hold very many opinions on the dog situation in general. If it comes up, I have talking points and ideas, but, aside from that, it rarely enters my field of thought.

What enters my field of thought, is eco people looking down on me for my car choice, which obviously means that the thoughts that cross my mind will be anything that refutes or puts a negative light on any argument that directly is against my life choices.

Ah. Constructive.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

I don't think the dogs and cats should simply be killed either. It's just we've bred way too many of them and they need to be brought down in population. And I don't thin neutering is a good idea, but rewilding dogs is because they will be forced to live in balance, although putting them in an urban setting could be dangerous, so perhaps the wilderness??

Dogs haven't been wild animals for over 10,000 years. It's in their instinct (an instinct purposefully designed through breeding) to bond with humans and work for humans. Unlike cats, even dogs who were born and raised feral can easily become family pets.
Besides, releasing a new species into the wild would be a massive disruption for the ecology. And the biggest "predator" of dogs, as it is, is cars. This would increase even further if dogs were left to roam. That's not cool for the dogs, or for the cars.

Out of curiosity, why do you think spaying/neutering is a bad idea?

[NDN Scholar]

@aelle You go, girl!

[marinik]

How can my dog be bad for mother nature like my Toyota RAV4?????? How can an animal who lowers blood pressure be bad for the environment? It is all our doing anyway. Without us budding in it would all be in balance and SUV's would roam the planet!

[carenkh]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Then again, she also believed that Paul McCartney was cool for forcing his vegetarianism on his roadies whilst on tour. He MADE them eat strictly vego food while they worked 12+ hour shifts for him!

No one "made" them do anything! It's their choice whether to work with Sir Paul or not. I can understand why he'd do that. That means that I currently couldn't be a roadie for Paul McCartney, but that isn't something to which I aspire.

[russianrocket]

lol by the way, in case anyone missed it, or misjudged my attitude towards the article...

I did post the title as " worse for the environment then, SUV's? " as I was surprised and bewildered at the suggestion my self.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by carenkh

No one "made" them do anything! It's their choice whether to work with Sir Paul or not. I can understand why he'd do that. That means that I currently couldn't be a roadie for Paul McCartney, but that isn't something to which I aspire.

Well true. He didn't make them, but he put it in their contract that they could only eat vegetarian food whilst working for him...which I personally don't think was all that thoughtful towards them...though thoughtful towards the animals he was passionate about saving.

[st33med]

We should definitely kill all humans then. We produce CO2 which is bad bad bad.