The Latest Advice From the Eco-Zealots: Eat Your Pets
I was all set to take my dogs out for quality time in the park, taking full advantage of the snow that’s blanketed the Northeast — but now the dogs will have to wait until I finish this piece, a response to an article in Agence France-Presse identifying man’s best friend as “one of the environment’s worst enemies.” So, once again, pets are a conveniently silent scapegoat for the ills of modern living.
In their unfortunately titled book Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale — self-described specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University in Wellington — charge that the carbon paw-print of a pet dog is double that of an SUV driving 6,200 miles a year, while a pet cat has an eco claw-print slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year. Confirming these results, John Barrett of the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, said, “Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance.” Pets’ detrimental impact on the environment is not limited to their carbon footprint, the Vales insist; if permitted to roam, predatory dogs and cats devastate wildlife (squirrels, birds, frogs) while their fecal matter spreads bacteria and disease in rivers and streams, killing aquatic life.
What about the tons of chemicals poured into the environment every day by completely non-pet-related individuals and entities? If you happen to live in a city affected by Sunday’s blizzard, such as my home town of New York, you may notice the sidewalks and roads paved with ice-melting crystals. This toxic chemical “salt” may prevent pedestrians from slipping and vehicles from hydroplaning, but it’s corrosive enough to eat away at metal and poses serious health hazards to people, especially children, if ingested or splashed in the eyes. It also harms the environment by burning lawns and plants and contaminating well and drinking water supplies.
People with pets have first-hand and -foot experience with this caustic stuff. Walking a bare-pawed dog on a salted street, you’ll notice the dog pitifully stopping to lift a paw as if he or she just stepped on a nail — that’s how harshly this stuff stings. Yet it’s impossible to avoid, so wintertime dog walks are complicated by strapping on dog booties, if Spot will tolerate them, or following every outing with a thorough paw-washing (and, if the burn is severe enough that Spot keeps licking at his toes, an application of soothing Neem oil).
Interestingly, there is a non-toxic alternative — and it was developed by and for pet lovers. Safe Paw Ice Melter works just as effectively as the toxic stuff. It’s even used at airports, where metal corrosion is not good for business, yet it’s totally safe for children, pets, and the environment. So when dogs and kids are out sledding or making snow angels in the park, they won’t run the risk of exposure to toxic chemicals.
Pet lovers tend to be equal-opportunity: We care about other species of fauna besides our dogs and cats. We select cat litter made of corn so the material absorbing Fluffy’s waste will biodegrade. We take care to scoop Spot’s poop with equally biodegradable waste bags, also made of corn. You may think you’re “recycling” that plastic supermarket bag by reusing it to scoop poop, but it will sit in a landfill for hundreds of years, or get stuck in a tree and blown into the ocean, where its durable plastic-ness threatens marine mammals mistaking it for food.
Pet people are also, increasingly, adopting vegetarian or vegan diets out of a feeling that it’s somehow wrong to cherish some animals while eating others. OK, so our cats, being obligate carnivores, do eat meat — but many of us offset the impact of indulging our pets’ carnivorous instincts by forsaking meat ourselves. Some dogs forgo meat alongside their conscientious owners. Listen to Deborah Howard, a vegan and founder of Companion Animal Protection Society, the only national nonprofit organization dedicated exclusively to protecting companion animals from cruelty in pet shops and puppy mills:
The raising of cows, pigs, and other animals for human and animal consumption is damaging to the environment. If animals and people alike were vegan, they would enjoy the benefits of good health and the environment would benefit. My vegan dog is almost 9 years old and runs about 50 miles a week; he is in such good shape and so healthy that everyone thinks he is around 2 years old. … I also strongly believe in having cats live indoors for their own safety (from cars, coyotes, and other creatures) as well as for the protection of wildlife. Other than feeding your companion animal a vegan diet, the other significant contribution you can make to decrease the carbon footprint of dogs and cats is to stop supporting breeders and pet shops. The thousands of high-volume, commercial breeding facilities, located primarily in the Midwest, that supply the pet-shop industry and online buyers, create large amounts of fecal and urine accumulation and run-off that pollutes our environment.
Other pets who live a vegetarian lifestyle include birds and rabbits. Incidentally, the Vales recommend rabbits as pets because they don’t eat meat — and add that when you tire of caring for Bugs, you can just cook him and serve him forth for supper! “Rabbits are good, provided you eat them,” Robert Vale has said. What kind of lesson in commitment and compassion does that teach children? What kind of heartless, unfeeling, Vale-like adults do such children grow up to be? Certainly not ones I want to know. Scrooges like the Vales overlook a simple fact: Pet lovers are among the most environmentally minded residents of the planet. Without them, and the economic incentive to create non-toxic products for their animal companions, the Earth would be a very toxic planet indeed.
Tod Emko lives in New York City with a dog and cat, both rescued, but his concern for the environment extends hundreds of miles — all the way to the Galapagos Islands, where stray dogs and cats have multiplied in recent years to such levels that they threaten endemic species, particularly sea lions, with the contagious diseases parvovirus and distemper, plus fleas, ticks, and other parasites. The Vales would argue that the easy solution would be to eat the strays. But Emko, who volunteered in Galapagos with the marine conservation society Sea Shepherd, has a kinder, gentler plan.
Emko partnered with the nonprofit Amigo Fiel (Spanish for “Faithful Friend”), and his goal is to build the islands’ first animal hospital and no-kill shelter to ensure that pets of the Galapagos receive proper medical attention and vaccinations so their peaceful coexistence won’t harm the local wildlife. Why should Americans care about pets in Galapagos? Because, Emko explains, “its wildlife replenish the oceans, and if we don’t work to protect all the islands’ animals from disease, then the entire world will suffer, because there will be no wildlife left.” (To inquire more or make a donation, go here.)
Like all equal-opportunity animal lovers, Emko is in good company. The Galapagos’ most famous advocate, Charles Darwin — played by actor Paul Bettany in the excellent film Creation, due out next month — also happened to be one of history’s biggest dog lovers:
“There are so many responsible ways to feed your pet while giving the ecosystem a break,” Emko points out. “Feeding McDonald’s products to kids has a much higher carbon consequence than feeding homeless cats and dogs. But people go after the animals who can’t argue back, since going after domestic cats and dogs is always easier than going up against the meat industry that’s devastating South American people, rainforests, animals, soil, air, and now-polluted waters.”
Animal lovers know that life on Earth would be nasty, brutish, and short without pets and the true, unconditional friendship they provide. Companion animals have been scientifically proven to lower blood pressure, stress, and help people live longer, healthier lives. A world without pets would be a place populated by mean-spirited churls like the Vales. That’s not a world I’d want to live in — would you?
“What about the tons of chemicals poured into the environment every day by completely non-pet-related individuals and entities? If you happen to live in a city affected by Sunday’s blizzard, such as my home town of New York, you may notice the sidewalks and roads paved with ice-melting crystals. This toxic chemical “salt” may prevent pedestrians from slipping and vehicles from hydroplaning, but it’s corrosive enough to eat away at metal and poses serious health hazards to people, especially children, if ingested or splashed in the eyes. It also harms the environment by burning lawns and plants and contaminating well and drinking water supplies.”
The “toxic” chemical in question is, actually, table salt. It does increase corrosion rate of cars, but its environmental impact is quite negligible.
Kind of exemplary to see such illiterate, but passionate New York moron.
P.S. Does this stupid New Yorker has any idea what hydroplaning is?
As an environmentalist, vegan and pet lover I’m really confused by these claims. They can’t be serious. CO2 is a pollutant, the science is settled on that, but this seems way extraordinary to be true. Are they saying we’re better off with SUVs than having pets?
* Head Explosion *
This has got to be some right-winged oil conspiracy, why else confuse us that way and promote such nonsense? At least the IPCC scientists are real and trustworthy, unlike these idiots who proclaim themselves to be sustainable living specialists. What next, they’re going to tell us polar bears aren’t close to extinction too, and the arctic isn’t melting? No hockey-stick graph or Ozone hole too right? Everyone eat their pets and drive a hummer now! You crazy gun-toting, suv-lovin wing-nuts.. no wonder everyone’s laughing at you all…
The Vales sound like they might make a tasty, protein-rich tidbit for a large carnivore themselves.
M-m-m. Yummy eggheads!
Next in line, children. Children are a major environmental problem, much worse than dogs & cats. This environmental BS has degenerated into a mental illness. The best thing for the environment of normal sane people would be to get rid of environmentalists.
“Time to eat the dog,” the eco-Nazis muse? I say it’s time to kick a little environmentalist butt.
Loony tree huggers seem to despise everything related to human domestication. They suffer from advanced cases of “dances with wolves” syndrome. As did the Kevin Costner character in the movie of the same name (who was the exception that proved the “all white men are evil” rule) environmentalists consider themselves to be okay — precisely because they denounce OTHER humans.
If they hate living here so much, let them get the [heck] off the planet. The rest of us — and our beloved animal companions — would be the better for it. So would the Earth.
Wow.
I guess that proves that even stupid people can get published and paid attention to. However, I am having trouble keeping this straight. If I remember correctly, WE are the blight upon the earth, which belongs to the animals. Shouldn’t we exterminate ourselves instead of our pets? But this guy says pets bad, people good? Or just domesticated animals bad because they are part of people, or….
Ah heck, I give up. Nutjobs come in many different types and agendas, this is just one of many. But, I should point out, he’s not from the conservative side of the aisle.
I have a dog named “rat”. I am willing to eat him if it will save the planet? Does anyone have any suggestions on what goes good with dog? Is it better to roast rat, fry rat, or BBQ rat? Perhaps it will be wise to eat rat raw, because the fire that i use to cook him may destroy the earth.
I think all of us who own dogs should be willing to eat them to help off set all the hot air coming from the global warming religion experts.
All this makes me so confused that i want to go drive a gas hog that gets about 12 miles to an oil well.
bobbyhonduras@yahoo.com
First Fluffy. Then our neighbors.
yyyyea, ok, but that’s not the way the world is made. All that behavior modification is unnatural. Besides, since the planet is not warming but, cooling, why are you making it worse by reducing carbon? The worse part of this is that people are wasting so much of their time and energy indulging in this hysterical worry party. I say if you can’t cure yourself of it, then shut up or find another universe where your fanatical wishes coincide with the natural order.
20 years from now this will be like most hysteria of the past, just a silly reminder that many of us can’t find anything useful to do after we have survival handled.
You mean a world where my next door neighbor’s weiner dog isn’t incessantly barking 24 hours a day or where every dog owner on my street doesn’t stop to let their dog crap on my lawn or pehaps a world where pet owners didn’t behave as if their pet had the same rights as my children?
Yeah, that’s a world I could get used to mightly quickly.
There’s a chance to post a comment at Jim Lehrer’s blog regarding his interview with Obama about Copenhagen.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2009/12/excerpt-obama-on-disappointment-in-copenhagen.html
It’s chance to post something for him to think about!
Remember a dog is not just for FChrtistmas, serve reasonable sized portions and you will get gold cuts from it on boxing day and maybe even have enough left to make a stew or curry.
Another old joke becomes true?
What is the carbon footprint left from writing, publishing, and distributing a piece of crap like “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide To Sustainable Living”? I think a better idea would be to eat the authors who fail to acknowledge their own “Carbon Footprint”. I hear they taste just like chicken.
Pets are an unnecessary and irrational luxury.
A dog is dumber than a pig and yet we have no problems with eating pork.
I think it makes perfect sense:
Keep the pets around as long as you can afford them and when you can’t,
eat them.
Pets make excellent companions and even better BBQs.
Pet people are also, increasingly, adopting vegetarian or vegan diets out of a feeling that it’s somehow wrong to cherish some animals while eating others.
Not me. If my dogs can “cherish some animals while eating others”, so can I.
in a worse case scenario, eat the dog, cat, rodents, snakes, insects, and finally your best friend. co2 is a pollutant? just breathing i’m destroying my environment so if they want to be Eco friendly don’t exhale…but what will my best friend the trees breathe?
recipe for Irish setter mulligan stew anyone. dog tacos, kegogi on a bed of rice.ummm good.
I can’t figure out for the life of me why all these greenies can’t recognize the damage they themselves cause and just stop eating, drinking, and breathing. From all the noise they make there have got to be enough of them to ease the burden for the rest of us. Or maybe its just telling the rest of us what to do.
We have seven cats—and we don’t dare try to eat them. They are far too dangerous. On the contrary, we have made an arrangement with these felines. We will continue feeding them so that they will not be tempted to devour us.
Julia, I can well understand your outrage over the nonsensical article you came across (in Agence France-Presse), and your need to respond. Good for you.
Keep on advocating for those loving critters whom President Harry Truman once complimented thusly: “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.” No doubt, the average dog is as least as good a companion (many would argue better) as is the average human.
Certainly, every dog with whom I’ve had the privilege to live has surpassed me in the qualities of decency and loyalty. (“Dog people,” you know what i mean.) It is natural that we would be grateful, and that we would want to treat them well.
As to whether some of us treat our dogs TOO well, I offer this from http://bereapundit.com/pampered-pets :
“I often hear it said that some people ‘treat animals better than they treat humans.’ I suppose that’s true. In some cases, anyway. Certainly, there are people who treat some animals better than they treat some humans. (I’ll set aside for a moment considerations over which among the various species are kindest, and so most deserving of returned affection.)”
Read More: Pampered Pets
If you eat the dog and the cat what will keep the vermin population down?
Humans didn’t domesticate animals because they were useless, but because they were useful.
I have no problem with eating cats or dogs. Thanks for keeping humanities problems in perspective for me, Julia.
I find people who consider an animal under their entire control a friend and true love a bit….much.
I’ve learned a thing about liberals from the ones in my own family; Don’t argue with them, let them run their own mouths. It’s in their biochemical makeup that their extreme thoughts compound exponentially, and for these compounding thoughts to flow like sick from their mouths.
It’s starts off with a small idea, like using cloth bags for shopping, then quickly avalanches into eating the pope.
They soon reveal themselves for the true idiots they are, and are soon off the invitation lists of parties.
Best thing to do, keep quiet, let them froth, and next year, you will have a lovely Christmas party with relatives you actually like.
I often hear it said that some people ‘treat animals better than they treat humans.’ I suppose that’s true. In some cases, anyway. Certainly, there are people who treat some animals better than they treat some humans. (I’ll set aside for a moment considerations over which among the various species are kindest, and so most deserving of returned affection.)
Most people are ungrateful, deceitful *ssholes always wanting more and giving nothing in return. The exact opposite of pets. I’d spend a million bucks to save one of my pets before I’d spend a penny on some douchebag “environmentalist”.
Sorry Julia, it is time to eat your dog. One of the “inconvenient truths” you ignoe is that after a big snow strom when the snow stays on the ground for more than a few days, you can barely walk on the sidewalk after the snow melts because there is so much dog doo that the owners didn’t bother to pick up. The problem is that we have too many pets and not enough responsible pet owners. If an unwanted child is born, they can still make themselves into a productive member of society. but an unwanted pet needs to be put down, humanely of course. and I would like to choose which pets in our neighborhood needs to be eaten. Do your part in saving our environment.
muzzies have a bigger carbon footprint than any creature on earth. something to be considered when debating leftyloons and assorted greenies.
Why don’t we just eat and/or destroy anything that leaves a large carbon footprint!? We can start with our neighbors, and move on to our neighbors..
Thanks for the insightful article, Julia! I read about that study last week and was horrified.
Hungry for dog?
Really hungry?
Well, neighbor, have I got a restaurant for you!
HOW MUCH IS THAT DOGGIE IN THE WINE SAUCE?: A Green Friendly Restaurant Review
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/how-much-is-that-doggie-in-the-wine-sauce-a-green-friendly-restaurant-review
This idiot, his wife and his vegan lifestyle can go fly a kite! How absurd these nut-cases can be. It’s not bad enough that they actually believe in their stupidity, but they suggest as well that those of us with a little common sense should follow them right off the edge of the lefty cliff! Oh yeah… and if we don’t listen to these morons we’ll be holding “the future of the planet” at risk. How obnoxiously ignorant! Fools such as these have been selling such nonsense for hundreds of years. We used to call them wizards and witches back in the dark ages… now they prefer the term ‘progressive’. I rather like something a bit more simple and closer to the point…
Question for Gaeialovesu: Are you on drugs or does a complete lack of common sense run in your family? I’ve heard some inane comments about climatology before, especially now that the cat’s out of the bag, but to suggest that ANY young scientific theory as profound as AGW is should be considered “settled science”, to a point that we need not research any further, is factually inaccurate and stupid to an extreme. Such observations could earn one a Nobel Prize… for melodrama!
Robert & Brenda Vale are totally insane immigrants to NZ. Unfortunately NZ is a socialist country with a socialist education system so they were made welcome at Victoria University.
Be careful America NZ used to be centre right and as such enjoyed a really good standard of living. No longer. We went left and are now near the bottom of the OECD and heading for third world status. Check it out and see the similarity bewteen where we have been and compare them with where you are heading with Obama.
Gaeialovesu-
“As an environmentalist, vegan and pet lover I’m really confused by these claims.” “CO2 is a pollutant, the science is settled on that,…”.
Well, your confusion is understandable. A pollutant by definition makes something “foul or unclean”. CO2 is necessary to sustain life on earth. You believe that a compound that sustains life is a “pollutant”, so your confusion is on display. That “the science is settled on that,” would only be apparent to someone as confused as yourself.
“At least the IPCC scientists are real and trustworthy,…”
Again I sympathize with your confused state, but your appear to have elected to believe climate hucksters in spite of the evidence that they “cooked the books” to keep those fat government checks coming.
“…polar bears aren’t close to extinction…” Well, no actually. People who keep track of such things and are interested in FACTS as opposed to driving POLITICAL AGENDAS have documented a significant INCREASE in the polar bear population over the past few decades.
My suggestion is that those of us who have retained our sanity begin feeding radical environmentalists to polar bears. That way, we solve two “challenges” at once.
You don’t need to thank me.
“Curiouser and curiouser”, said Alice…
I won’t mince any words here.
If the eco-Nazis would consider the unintended consequences of their rabid asinine comments, they might realize that I would much rather keep my German Shepherd and Malinois and feed them quite lavishly upon the carcasses of these morons than consider any mentally deranged alternatives that they propose.
In that spirit, could someone please post an article as to how we can INCREASE our *Cough* “carbon footprint” by an order of magnitude or 3?
Just to bring some reality back to the discourse, and add to the fun as their tiny minds explode…
The first time I heard the term “sustainable living” from my Marxist-hippie sister, I had an uneasy feeling. Now I’ve learned that every coinage used by the Left has some equivalence to or some meaning commensurate with death.
Of course, “Necklacing” a liberal would likely offset both the tire burning and any pets one has. Also it may have the side bennifit of a Nobel Peace prize like Mandela got… and just think of all the necklacing Mandelas ANC did.
Funny comments, but to get serious about this – since people are the ones polluting the planet far more than animals (whom we have domesticated and are responsible for), we as people need to take more steps to clean up the planet and preserve it. Stop the name calling, do more than recycle your beer bottles and actually get involved in your community. Hard to break old habits but if you want your descendants to have a planet worth living in then we need to change.
The Eco- Zealits and Peta should go at it and kill each other .
Hey here is a question for those who believe that the “science is settled” and that they and their pets are living a vegan life style. What do you want?
What I mean is, what is your final objective, what will the world ruled by you all organic veggie eating, hemp sandal wearing, eco-coincience types finally look like?
And for the record Cats are pure carnivores and forcing them on a vegan diet is cruel, they can’t properly digest vegtable protien, and while dogs are omnivores their guts are likewise poorly suited to processing vegtable matter and they need animal protiens and fats to be healthy.
It’s starts off with a small idea, like using cloth bags for shopping, then quickly avalanches into eating the pope.
Berkly: epic, EPIC WIN! My favorite line of the year. Awesome!
amalthia, (#36)
You forgot the sarcasm tag!
Unless you were being serious, in which case ALL of the sentient beings here would call you “seriously misguided”.
Yes, there ARE isolated instances of concentrated amounts of poisonous materials being exposed to small areas of the planet, and that should be minimized. It will never be eliminated. Try to regulate Africa and Asia. Good luck. However, THEY are over there, and WE are over here, so aside from a few tiny but highly publicized “dump spots”, nobody but the immediate residents are affected. A shame, but that is life.
NO amounts of effort and legislation will ever stop that.
People and animals CAN NOT “pollute the planet” by their mere existence! It would take something on the scale of a worldwide nuclear war to significantly affect this planet’s system of cleaning itself.
All of the efforts to effect change in the metros back 40 years ago merely turned dumps like L.A. into a little less of a dump.
AGW? A lie, a fraud, and now a proven joke.
“Climate change”? Uhh… THAT is NATURAL, CYCLICAL, and ONGOING.
Trying to legislate against historical changes in the weather patterns is like trying to legislate against GRAVITY just because fat people like Al Gore don’t like the way it makes them sweat!
We don’t need to change any of our habits or clean up anything aside from some illegal dumping. We are NOT as significant in affecting the planet as you would think.
But I guess there will always be a scam to line the pockets of those who are insidious enough to fleece the ignorant and gullible.
Remember W.C. Fields?
Always remember, when hearing such shrill calls for “change”:
Who benefits?
Hmm. Maybe scammers like Gore who are set to “trade” in “carbon credits”? Sounds a LOT like those who trade in market “derivatives”.
Yeah, the same people who deal in invisible nothings created from thin air and who are destroying the economy? Hmm, once again.
Lots of money in fooling people.
Clean environs are great, do not mistake me on that. BUT, unless you are burning 100 tires in a bonfire or pouring 10,000 gallons of HCl
into your local creek, you are not hurting the planet. OK?
It is, once again, a self-cleaning system. This planet can handle almost anything we can throw at it.
Myself, I believe it was designed that way.
Oh, in reference to my comment above, nothing was intended as a personal slight. I posted without editing that:
It is NOT a PERSON that I debate against, but a mindset and belief system.
Thank you…
The science is settled; the overwhelming consensus of scientists are in agreeement: Robert & Brenda Vale are dogs.
I have 2 very dull syringes of pentobarbital just for them.
Are all these people reading the same article? Julia, keep on with your reasoning articles.
If their figures are correct this would dramatically lower the carbon footprint of several Asian nations… just sayin’ … never-mind …
Where’s Fido?
This article really should have been titled “Eco-idiot worries other eco-idiots have gone too far”
Environmentalism is all about central government control–Communism; they hide behind being eco-friendly as a guise so Communism becomes more palpable to digest. Global Warming has blown up in their faces & they are desperate. No one takes them seriously except perhaps young malleable brains from the school age children & disgusting politicians looking to pander to another niche group.
Please, Julia, keep those common sense comments coming. I’m not sure what planets these people are located. I sincerely hope it’s a mistake and it’s not ours!
Anyone who says “The science is settled” is a complete buffoon. Science is nothing but theories, models and hypothesis. A lot of what we see and know today is based on those forms, but it is a far cry from ‘settled’. CO2 is a pollutant? I don’t think so. It’s a chemical bond/element/whatever.. only our human politics are naming is a ‘pollutant’. I seemed to recall plant life relying on CO2 and in return they create oxygen. Doesn’t sound like a pollutant if it’s essential to plant life.
This whole carbon footprint religion is nonsense. Everything on this planet is carbon-based! Do people not already know that? How come reduced breeding isn’t in the forefront of fighting carbon footprints, eh? And Obama wants the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to be reduced by 80%. 80%! That’s great in the fight against man-made global warming.. oh wait.. let’s see.. if 100% would mean that ALL life on this planet is gone, where does 80% leave us? Docile, immobile, in the Matrix?
I’m sure that most individual members of Western Civilization, including the individuals trying to bring it down, generate a bigger “carbon footprint” than a house pet.
Therefore, to reduce the overall carbon footprint of the West, I propose that we feed all these loons to staving polar bears. I am certain that they will agree to this and even volunteer in order to preserve the polar bears and reduce the output of CO2.
Of course, if these people fail to volunteer, sterner measures will be called for.
If these freaks ever start coming after pets, I swear I’ll drop them where they stand if come anywhere near my babies!
Yeah, this thing’s a bit of a beat-up. Pets have their cost – economic and environmental – but they’re insignificant compared with, say, a child. If this is the analysis I’ve seen elsewhere (I don’t care enough to check any more) then it’s a bit narrow – measuring everything in terms of agricultural hectares. It’s also misguided in thinking that everything that mittens or spot eats has been specially grown – whereas in truth it’s at least partly stuff that wouldn’t have found a western market for people-food (I wonder how china deals with this? They eat EVERYTHING themselves – I guess their pets just eat rice).
But if you want to eat your dog, go ahead – or your cat, for that matter (aka ‘roof rabbit’). Fact is, they’re already food in some places. Just don’t come after any of mine
They’re also not particularly efficient sorts of food because they grow slowly and they’re mostly carnivores – pigs, sheep and cattle are much more efficient sources of meat. Probably tastier, too (I’ve never eaten moggy – and I’ve never knowingly eaten any puppydog).
It never fails to amaze me, the stupidity of liberal eco freaks. They will twist the facts, or just out and out lie, to support their pet ’cause’ of the day. It does not matter if they are against almost everything at one time or another, as long as they can feel morally superior to the vast majority of us that don’t buy into their kooky outlook on life and the planet we live on.
I am fully in agreement with the proposal voiced by others here. Every eco freak should be offered the chance to do their part in saving the planet by voluntarily agreeing to die, helped along by force if necessary. They are willing to ‘force’ the rest of us to live by their silly rules after all. Their remains could be made into animal food or fertilizer, thus helping the world’s plants and animals to survive. I am much more willing to feed eco freak to my cats, than to feed my cats to an eco freak.
So, my dog is bad?
I bike commute, use my rain barrel, drive little, eat locally, and conserve water and power. Can’t win, can I?
Tell you what. I will take your arguments much more seriously when you come down on people who have ludicrous amounts of children. Also, people who use fertilization methods that yield multiple high risk babies. Usually, these births require the use of power, personnel, and supplies of an entire small hospital.
I propose that families with more than 2 children, donate the extra ones to research.
Sensationalism sells.
Perhaps instead of all-or-nothing ultimatums, all of us just do whatever we can to conserve. A little more realistic than putting down fido or jr.
BOSTON — This procured glass wholesale two hrs to experience the very first four innings from Fenway Meadow about Wednesday, plus while in the Yankees’ bullpen, Dave Robertson could possibly feel the overall game dragging. He / she sensed the possibility.