An Article: Dogs are not environmentally friendly...!

[Blackbird]

If the 'author' or whoever it is, is so concerned about the environment and sustaining energy, etc. then he or she would be producing their own meat to feed their pets that raw diet, and most likely be using more natural ways and self vet care. THEN those pets would more environmentally friendly. The author is a hypocrite at best.

Where ARE y'all getting these things???

How on earth do you know how the authors of the book (that's authors *plural*) are feeding their cats or taking care of their health needs??? You have no idea. You are just making that up as something to complain about.

And anyhow what does that have to do with the authors totting up the impact of what MOST PEOPLE in the Western world do in terms of feeding and equipping and caring for their pets? Which is what the book is ABOUT, not what they personally do.


Pat, all in favor of pet ownership, and not feeling in any way threatened by this book, man oh man.

No need to get your tights in a bunch, Lol.

I said they WOULD if they thought it was a big deal, not that it isn't. I agree that what people do with their pets is def. unnecessary.

I read back, I must have gotten confused about who was getting rid of their cats. It mentioned their calculations on the amount of acreage needed to sustain the dog's diet of 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals in a year both figures measuring food weight before it is dried and processed into kibbles. I thought the same people (Vales) were getting rid of their cats, because of being 'environmentally unfriendly'.

I'm saying that if people really wanted pets, and cared about the environment to this extent, they would most likely being taking their pet's needs into their own hands.

I'm making it up to complain about? PLEASE! I have better things to do than make a bunch of crap up because I'm some 'anti-telluswhattodowithourpets'. I'm simply voicing my opinion, which you seem to enjoy doing as well. The article and book do not threaten me at all, personally. I don't even feed our cats, aside from a bit of milk when the goats get off the stand, they get it themselves.

As you said, haven't read the book, but I would hope they have addressed and suggested 'alternatives' for owning at pet - for those who care.

I think the whole thing is kind of silly and pointless- telling people they might want to get rid of their beloved pet for the better of mankind? I doubt anyone who DOES 'harm the enviroment' by unnecessary pet supplies, dress up, etc. will even care.

 

[Blackbird]

Maybe I'll be a hypocrite and write a book addressing the author's waste of resources by writing, editing, publishing, and advertising a book, etc. THAT is why 'they' are a hypocrite.

 

[DrakeMaiden]

Yikes! This topic seems nearly as contentious as "The Poopy Pant Effect."

Reminds me of a sign I saw that said "When the stuff hits the fan, it will not be evenly distributed."

 

[2dream]

"Quoted from Article Link Posted"

According to New Zealand-based researchers Robert and Brenda Vale, large household pets chew up more resources than over-sized cars. And they are ever-so-gently suggesting that you might want to get rid of them.

However - More information can be found here

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html?page=2

And here is another intersting article

http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/

A simple search for Prof Vale and Dr. Vale will lead you to a great many links discussing their credentials.

Are they intelligent? I can only assume they are since they are so well educated and have created quite a stir along with free publicity for their new book. Do I particularly care for their research in this instance? No, because I think it is nit picky and flawed. Am I on a witch hunt? No They are business people. There job is to sell themselves and their ideas. Its what they do. Just like any other free enterprise.

Do I feel threatened? Not in the least. And as pointed out I have not read the book - and I probably won't.

 

[xpc]

Yikes! This topic seems nearly as contentious as "The Poopy Pant Effect."

you made me snort beers with your quote, yes I am 12 or there about.

 

[DrakeMaiden]

I haven't tried snorting beer yet. Does it hurt?

 

[Wolf-Kim]

Goodness gracious.

I wonder what the scientists are going to do with themselves and their family, once they come to the realization that humans are the ultimate environmental disaster. LOL

So silly, trying to pin stupid stuff on animals.


Are pets the most eco friendly things? Of course not, they need food, water, disposal, and medications. They get all the biproducts of the food industry run for and by people. The animals would need less space to raise their food, if they are fed well and fed more meat and less cereals. It's just a waste of cereals. LOL Feed your dog corn, then have the poo analyzed and see what doesn't get digested.

 

[FarmerChick]

If people could be more responsible for their own lives and well being and sufficiency....the impact would be incredible.

But---the big old bad city. where no one produces truly anything to credit to their survival on the basic level.

The basic natural world is gone. It isn't coming back any time soon either.

Cities are not the environmental evil that most people assume them to be. If planned correctly, cities have a much lower impact per person than living in the country.

Show me one that is planned correctly. Not many.

LOL

All I am saying is on the basic level they DON'T DO FOR themselves. Leaving all the basic survival needs supplied by others. Trucked, train etc. shipped to them.

 

[patandchickens]

I do not know how to say this more clearly other than: the authors are CORRECT that pets have a meaningful impact on the environment.

You cannot sensibly argue this is not true.

You can disagree with the extent (if any) to which this fact should influence peoples' behavior, of course, and how it compares to everything else people do in life.

But it is TRUE.

And insulting the book's authors as being hypocritical, being inhumane or uncaring to animals, being too stupid to think of lower-impact ways of keeping pets, and being interested only in a quick buck or ego trip -- all of which have been claimed in various posts -- seems to me kind of "much", ahem.

And you know what, if they were not Scientists and Academics (capital letters meant to denote official membership in those locally-abhorred and despised groups) -- if instead this was, say, Joel Salatin saying the same sort of thing, I think y'all would be having an ENTIRELy different thread than this one.

What on earth do you mean, "I wonder what the scientists are going to do with themselves and their family, once they come to the realization that humans are the ultimate environmental disaster"???
This is a POLICY issue and a personal ethics issue, not a SCIENCE issue at all. And anyhow, scientists figured out what you say above a long, LONG LONG time ago, considerably before it became pop culture dogma. I mean, no kidding.

Pat

 

[FarmerChick]

I like that ETR
not always being evaluated for its use.
alot of people sure do that in their personal studies and articles.


yup