Tell me if you’ve heard this one before: Experts are saying the things which bring us the most joy are responsible for the evils plaguing the planet…
The Guardian recently published a story citing a review of existing studies that concluded “the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognized.”
To put that in clearer English, they are saying that dogs are horrible for the planet…
How Are Dog’s (Allegedly) Hurting The Planet?
The review was published in the Pacific Conservation Biology journal and went on to cite numerous examples of how dogs ruin ecosystems, including:
- Dog attacks destroyed a colony of “little penguins”
- Deer, fox, and bobcats are less active in or avoid areas where dogs are
- Dog poop affects soil chemistry and plant growth
- The dry dog food industry emits as much CO2 as the 60th highest-emitting country
Let me go through each of those and try to explain why I believe this is insane…
First off, every single creature that exists on this planet can be found to be “bad” for some portion of it: Large tree roots choke out smaller vegetation beneath them, bobcats kill rabbits, birds eat fish, some plants poison animals. Wouldn’t all of that categorically be “bad” if viewed from only one, narrow lens? Also, one of the largest killers of birds in the United States? Wind mills… which are supposed to help the planet.
The last point, that the dog food industry emits a lot of CO2, is that really a dog problem or an industrialization/manufacturing problem? If you really wanted to reduce CO2, would you say “Dogs are bad” or would you perhaps figure out some ways that the producers of their food can be more eco-friendly and sustainable? Seems pretty clear which one would have a larger and more actionable impact. Also, highly mass-produced, low quality “kibble” isn’t good for your dog anyways…
On other animals being less active or avoiding areas where dogs are, uhmm hello, yeah of course they are! I would go out on a limb and say that animals are also less active in areas where there are bears, mountain lions, coyotes, and other carnivorous predators. Sure, we like to view our puppies as nothing more than harmless little good boys or girls but let’s not forget that they’re animals, and if left to their own devices, would become vicious hunters in no time (excluding those little fur-ball rats that we’ve bred into existence, though some of them would probably do damage on mice populations). This also explains the “dogs killed little penguins” example. Horrible for the penguins, absolutely, but also would you expect Antarctic dogs to not have that instinct? Seems like bad owners didn’t have control over their pets rather than some aggregated problem of domesticated canines.
And the whole poop situation… Most people pick up their dog poop but even in areas where it isn’t, will we just ignore all of the other animals that are defecating on the landscape? Surely that has a negative impact, especially when it’s black bears rummaging through garbage or turkey vultures passing the spoiled, rotten carcasses they feast on.
The report’s lead author, Bill Bateman, in an attempt to defend the findings, said he recognizes the “huge benefits” dogs have on their owners and (ironically) their vital role in conservation work, but also that he wants us to be aware of the downsides:
“To a certain extent we give a free pass to dogs because they are so important to us … not just as working dogs but also as companions… Although we’ve pointed out these issues with dogs in natural environments … there is that other balancing side, which is that people will probably go out and really enjoy the environment around them – and perhaps feel more protective about it – because they’re out there walking their dog in it.”
How To Stop Dogs From Hurting The Environment
In terms of what people can do, the report says to pick up your dog’s poop, keep them on leashes in areas where restrictions apply, and maintain a buffer distance between dogs and nesting shorebirds.
Bateman said:
“A lot of what we’re talking about can be ameliorated by owners’ behavior… Maybe, in some parts of the world, we actually need to consider some slightly more robust laws… If nothing else, pick up your own dog sh*t”
So… basically follow the existing rules? Wow, such a bold statement in defense of the planet…
Why This Study Is Ineffective
This entire argument frames dogs as separate from the environment, as if dogs and humans exist on top of ecosystems rather than within them. This is just false. Dogs and humans are part of the planet and all its cycles and systems. Does that mean those systems provide different results than if we both went extinct? Yeah, of course, just like there would be different results if salmon, bald eagles, pine trees, bison, or any other flora or fauna went extinct.
Do us humans need to be better stewards of the natural resources given to us? Absolutely, I am a conservationist through and through but we need to be honest about the arguments made to ensure they are grounded in reality, not some utopian (and impractical) world that demonizes people and their pets.
Conservationist Doug Duran said it best: “It’s not ours, it’s just our turn”. I couldn’t agree more, but if you want to get more people onboard with preserving vast stretches of uninhibited land with free roaming animals, saying their dog at home has “extensive and multifarious” negative impacts on the planet is not a good recruiting strategy.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to take my environmentally damaging mutt for a walk.
Enjoy this incredible video of a border collie herding sheep.
