# Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend..



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood

_PARIS (AFP) – Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle._

_ But the revelation in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers._

_ The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year._

_ Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car._

_ To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same._


_"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said._


_Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say._
_ Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones._

_But Reha Huttin, president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating. "Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly," Huttin told AFP. "Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don't eat meat, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?"_


_Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, "Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all. "I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations."I don't want a life without animals," she told AFP._


_And pets' environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say._


_With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist. Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life. And cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease. _

_But despite the apocalyptic visions of domesticated animals' environmental impact, solutions exist, including reducing pets' protein-rich meat intake. "If pussy is scoffing 'Fancy Feast' -- or some other food made from choice cuts of meat -- then the relative impact is likely to be high," said Robert Vale. _
_ "If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower." Other potential positive steps include avoiding walking your dog in wildlife-rich areas and keeping your cat indoors at night when it has a particular thirst for other, smaller animals' blood. _
_As with buying a car, humans are also encouraged to take the environmental impact of their future possession/companion into account. _

_But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table. _
_ "Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale._


----------



## Tim Lynam (Jun 12, 2009)

I guess I can live guilt free. When I was a kid, there was a bounty on rats, sparrows and starlings. I eliminated enough of them to be able to own a LOT of "gas guzzler" dogs. Not only that, but; I used the money to buy a bike. Green before there was Green!


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Who gives a shit what a couple extremeist from New Zealand think. 

You thought PETA was bad, wait till these green douce bags get rolling. If PETA's right, some dogs and cats will live bad lives. If the Vales are right, your dogs and cats will be responsible for setting the earth on fire.


----------



## Danielle Wagner (Dec 6, 2009)

The only thing I wish for is *Global Warming* in Alaska. :lol:


----------



## Becky Shilling (Jul 11, 2006)

I saw this story this morning and could only shake my head. Great. Al Gore will be blasting us evil pet owners now!


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Becky Shilling said:


> I saw this story this morning and could only shake my head. Great. Al Gore will be blasting us evil pet owners now!


----------



## Adam Swilling (Feb 12, 2009)

I drive a big ass truck and my wife drives a big ass car. I have a total of 6 animals and throw out 5-6 bags of trash a week. I plan on dying with a beer in one hand and a bacon sandwich in the other. the left wingers can kiss my fat butt. LOL!


----------



## Sidney Johnsen (May 31, 2009)

> _If pussy is scoffing 'Fancy Feast' -- or some other food made from choice cuts of meat -- _


](*,)

Somebody didn't do their research here, as Fancy Feast is definitely NOT made from choice cuts of meat!!

The whole article was laughable.. but that part especially, for me at least.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Yeah pretty interesting to say the least where these guys come from. I got a kick out of the reference to cats having a higher carbon footprint than dogs. By killing rodents and birds they say that there is a upset in the balance. I can understand the birds .. but the rodents. I think felines and the rat dogs of the early 1900s did a lot for the overall 'good' health of all humans. 

Sidney I giggled as well reading that thing about 'Fancy Feast' too. So I guess my dogs carbon footprint is a lot smaller now that I buy 'RAW' from the slaughterhouse and it is all the stuff that humans won't eat. We are doing our part! LOL!


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Think about this, 

They are comparing a single SUV that is driven 6200 miles a year. to all the industry that takes to feed and care for a dog for a year. Most people drive 12k a year....so it's not more than double. It's about the same.

the comparison is still a bit retarded. retarded. Flip it around and take a single dog, what he emits himself and compare it to all industry that it takes to care for the car for one year. Not to mention build it....


----------



## Becky Shilling (Jul 11, 2006)

This may seem like a joke (as it should) BUT.... they have put a methane tax on cattle so hold your laughter. You could one day soon very well be facing a tax bill for your dogs.


----------

