Man's best friend, mankind's worst enemy?

So I read an article today, here: www.thestar.com...

Article is about the ecological footprint of your dog. Or should I say big dog. Little ones I guess don't count. Two researchers from New Zealand Robert and Brenda Vale, claim that your family dog chews up more resources than an over sized car.

They apparently have written a book on this subject:

"Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living"

Here are some details from the article on their findings:

According to their figures, feeding a medium-sized dog for a year has twice the environmental impact of driving a luxury SUV for 10,000 kilometres.

The Vales based 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.

The Vales based much of their research on work done at the University of British Columbia in the early '90s. Researchers there created the framework to gauge a person's ecological footprint. Called a "global hectare," it measures how much useful land each of us – and now our pets – use to sustain our lifestyles.

According to the Vales' inputs, your chowhound requires the produce of 0.84 global hectares (gha) to sustain him for one year – either as food or feed for livestock. A larger dog, say, a Labrador, might require as much as 1.1 gha of space.

A Toyota Land Cruiser, by contrast, requires 0.41 gha of biocapacity in year. A North American uses about 9 gha.

The book’s playful title, and serious suggestion that pet animals may be usefully “recycled”, by being eaten by their owners or turned into petfood when they die, may not appeal to animal fans.

blog.miragestudio7.com...

As a dog lover, find this completely appalling. These people have, in my opinion, gone over the edge of environmental insanity.

How long is it before this type of logic is used for calculating the environmental footprint for individual humans? First your dogs have to go, then your kids, then you.

The carbon footprint craze has completely gotten out of hand and must be stopped before it consumes us all! Umm...I mean our dogs.

"Some people have said maybe we should eat academics instead," Vale said, laughing.

In the case of these two academics, I would have to agree.



[edit on 27-10-2009 by kommunist]

I caught this last week and I was so amazed that it has gone this far. Who funds this nonsense?

According to the Vales' inputs, your chowhound requires the produce of 0.84 global hectares (gha) to sustain him for one year – either as food or feed for livestock. A larger dog, say, a Labrador, might require as much as 1.1 gha of space.

I cannot see how my Border Collie and Havanese has a negative environmental impact greater that driving a SUV.

My dogs contribute back to the world numerous times a day , and then again when they die.

And lets take into account the factory space required to build the SUV, and the factory space to build all the parts going to the assembly plant, and the fuel required to transport all this stuff...

These two researchers = fail

reply to post by kommunist



Do not care about global warming, but i have jack russells anyway.

Big dogs i find are not as intelligent, as smaller dogs.

Plus do not ask me for proof, i just feel that way, lol

reply to post by andy1033


dogs are just dogs, big ones poop more. But Jack Russel's seem to have a unique taste for my buttocks. You can keep em. Mean little yip yips.

Imagine, if this research exists for a 50lb dog...........what kind of load does a 300lb welfare recipient create?

Blast away, but I would choose my 90lb Pit over my 300lb cousins anyday!! The pit has a much, much smaller environmental footprint, he is taken care of by me, not the government, and he provides companionship-love-and Protection (with a capital P!)!!

So, slippery slope fans, is it time to eat the dogs.......or........?

reply to post by network dude


Yep they do, lol.

Nice thread and shows how intrusive the government wants to be today. I would rather any dog, over a human companion any day. That saves alot of dung, like the above poster said.

If everyone choose to have a dog over a companion, the population thing would soon dwindle wouldnt it, saving all the hassle.

No doubt my medium sized mutt is much more loyal, dedicated, trustworthy and a much less of a carbon footprint creator than the, at minimum, 3 security guards I would need to employ to do the job this good dog does for me 24 hours a day. God help the hapless bunnies, squirrels, raccoons, possums and thieves that wander onto Heathen Crest Acres, here in the wooded knoblands of south central Kentucky.

But what about the energy saved by not needing an alarm system running 24/7. I think this story is ridiculous. I wonder how big the carbon footprint is for this study

Besides, my dog doesn't have a carbon footprint...he has a carbon PAW print...and it's cute!

Originally posted by kommunist

"Some people have said maybe we should eat academics instead," Vale said, laughing.

In the case of these two academics, I would have to agree.

Well, I'm vegan, but in this case - pass the salt

What a load of tosh. When my dog builds a sewer that empties into the sea, then I'll consider him an environmental hazard. And while he's at it he may as well tarmac over a few hundred miles of fields to make a motorway... you get my point

The saddest part of this article is that theses people have actually stopped keeping cats. I had to go back to read that to make sure I'd remembered it right.

Cor! While they're at it why don't they do a study of all the other animals on the planet so we can resent every mouthful they eat too. After all, we as humans have the most right - what rubbish.

My dog is currently taking up all the space on the sofa having played me into the ground all day. How useful he is in helping me to exercise and keep fit. And how character building it is for me to allow him the most comfortable spot in the house.

They've all got their uses and are well worth that bowl of food every day. And how fat we'd all be if they weren't there to share our pies and biscuits

reply to post by kyred


As I understand it, wolfs and ancient humans formed a bond even before humans had a language! It was (and still is) a mutually beneficial relationship, the dogs ate the scraps that the humans could not process, they provided a "garbage disposal" and protection, and early detection and warning, while the humans provided the food and fire and shelter.

I guess 80,000 years or so of loyalty can be wiped out by one fictitious Al Gore movie?

reply to post by getreadyalready




Oh man...so true.

Glad that people seem to find this study as ridiculous as I do.

The saddest part of this article is that theses people have actually stopped keeping cats. I had to go back to read that to make sure I'd remembered it right.

I don't really get it either. Makes me wonder how they got rid of their cats, and what they did with the carcasses.

Kitty Soylent Green?