Researchers advocate swapping dogs for edible 'pets' like chickens or rabbits.
I suddenly feel the need to defend my sweet pup, Buffalo Bill Cody.
Two researchers from Victoria University found that, "The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year," New Zealand's Dominion Post reported.
The researchers, are professors Brenda and Robert Vale, and they've authored a provocatively titled book called, "Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living."
Firstly, I think it's great to consider the environmental impact of everything we do. But I'm not quite ready to kiss Buffalo goodbye. And here's why.
There are a few fishy things with their numbers. Although I don't disagree, of course, that our pets have an environmental footprint.
Their first contention that your dog is worse than your SUV has way too many variables. For one, they used a German Shepherd as their baseline, which weighs in around 70 or 80 pounds. And while I know there are 100+ pound dogs out there, I don't know a single dog owner with one. Maybe that's because I live in a city (a very dog-friendly one, though). Buffalo Bill is 40 pounds soaking wet and many of my friends have dogs that barely reach 8 pounds.
Also, they compare their baseline pooch to driving 10,000 km a year, which is only 6,250 miles. I think it would be awesome if everyone with a car only drove 6,000 miles a year, but the average American actually drives 12,000.
The most hilarious part of their research is that they advocate swapping household pets like cats and dogs for edible 'pets' like chickens or rabbits.
Here's quote from one of the professors:
"The title of the book is a little bit of a shock tactic, I think, but though we are not advocating eating anyone's pet cat or dog there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment."
It seems to me that they are missing the entire point of having pets. If I had to eat my dog (or my rabbit) I'm sure I'd have an entirely different emotional relationship to him. I don't think I've ever known anyone who enjoyed taking a chicken for a walk, but watching Buffalo Bill Cody run on a grassy hill at top speed is sheer joy.
The emotional and other benefits of pets are well-documented, as the LA Times reported:
Having a pet can meet many human psychosocial needs and has been undervalued in the field of mental health, says the author of a comprehensive review of human-pet bonds published today in the journal Family Process.
The research, by Dr. Froma Walsh of the Center for Family Health at the University of Chicago, finds that pets provide stress reduction, companionship, affection, comfort, security and unconditional love to their owners. Having a pet can even confer physical health benefits. For example, heart attack survivors who have pets are likely to live longer if they have a pet.
Then again, maybe I'm just a guilty greenie rationalizing my own need to have a pet.
Here is something interesting to consider from their research:
"In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido."
Helpful data when you consider what to feed your dog, perhaps. Maybe the next big thing will be 100-mile diets for dogs?
No comments:
Post a Comment