Negative Environmental Impact of Pets

[GregC]

Yeah I thought about the strain domestic pets put on the world...but the problem is if we don't take them in and feed them we have stray dogs and half starved cats in every ally way.

At this point we need to take care of animals, we owe them at least that for manipulating their genetics and behavior for centuries to the point where they cannot survive without us.

However animals should be spayed or neutered and pet stores should be burned to the ground to make way for and improve the quality of animal shelters.

I agree with all of this. Taking steps to reduce the impact of pet ownership--especially spaying/neutering, taking in shelter pets instead of going through puppy mills and thinking of efficiency when feeding pets (instead of getting the fancy foods)--all make sense.

Besides, who only drives their gas-guzzling 4x4 6,200 miles/yr ?

Yeah, that struck me as a really bogus comparison.

 

[GregC]

I think the people who try to find the flaws in everything (including owning pets) are an even more negative impact on the environment and society.

Concur.

Despite the fact that you are a Falcons and Auburn fan, I approve of this statement.



Silly PETA-types, I feed my dogs sea kitten based foods, deal with it.

Amen to this.

So information is bad? Got it.

 

[Gard]

So information is bad? Got it.

I took statistics in college (and no, information isn't bad), it was enlightening. I firmly believe that to graduate HIGH SCHOOL you should have a solid foundation in the discipline.

Why?

My professor had a wonderful statement, which has been born out over and over in my life:

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Also:

"Telling a lie is easy, telling a really GOOD one requires statistics (which you can manipulate)."

Fact:

Until you know HOW these statistics are collected and how they are presented, you don't know what the heck they say. Statistical bias is a genuine factor in all discussions of this type.

So, to really answer your question: No, information isn't bad, but how it is presented is always in question.

FWIW, I don't doubt that there is something going on with our global climate. I don't doubt that we are influencing it to at least some degree, if not strongly influencing it. I do not think that "all the freaky tree hugging 'scientists' are trying to lie to us with their statistics". I just think that we need to be cautious about how we react (or under/over - react) to anything this serious. We need to make sure we have all the information, and have a full and rational picture of it. We need to do things that make sense NOW (better gas mileage cars, less carbon emissions from power plants, stop trashing our planet in general, get our population growth under control, make sure to protect and ensure clean water supplies, etc), and figure out what is really happening in a big-picture way before jumping at shadows.

 

[Dr. Cheese]

That reports observations about the impact of cat predation on local environments is well documented. In places where cats are not native, they really hurt species that have not evolved to handle them. In many places, bird populations have really been hurt by cats.

 

[Gard]

That reports observations about the impact of cat predation on local environments is well documented. In places where cats are not native, they really hurt species that have not evolved to handle them. In many places, bird populations have really been hurt by cats.

True.

I believe that poor pet ownership should be something that is not just a responsibility, but failure to be a good steward should be detrimental to those that are guilty of not doing it. Fines, etc, should be levied against those that do not properly manage their domestic animals. Spaying/neutering is #1 on the list, unless you are planning on conscientiously breeding them, and have good prospects for homes.

All of my pets are rescues, and they are spayed/neutered.

 

[GregC]

Gard, I hear your warnings about stats. But I would strongly suggest sticking with the study linked in the OP rather than starting broad global warming argument #388 here. And from where I stand, the study has some dodgy comparisons but is pretty useful in pointing out things people who own pets or are considering owning them should at least consider. Dismissing it with a simple "I'm sick of hearing about global warming", as you guys seem to be doing on page 1, does the topic a disservice, IMO.

 

[bass12]

I took statistics in college (and no, information isn't bad), it was enlightening. I firmly believe that to graduate HIGH SCHOOL you should have a solid foundation in the discipline.

Why?

My professor had a wonderful statement, which has been born out over and over in my life:

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Also:

"Telling a lie is easy, telling a really GOOD one requires statistics (which you can manipulate)."

Fact:

Until you know HOW these statistics are collected and how they are presented, you don't know what the heck they say. Statistical bias is a genuine factor in all discussions of this type.

So, to really answer your question: No, information isn't bad, but how it is presented is always in question.

FWIW, I don't doubt that there is something going on with our global climate. I don't doubt that we are influencing it to at least some degree, if not strongly influencing it. I do not think that "all the freaky tree hugging 'scientists' are trying to lie to us with their statistics". I just think that we need to be cautious about how we react (or under/over - react) to anything this serious. We need to make sure we have all the information, and have a full and rational picture of it. We need to do things that make sense NOW (better gas mileage cars, less carbon emissions from power plants, stop trashing our planet in general, get our population growth under control, make sure to protect and ensure clean water supplies, etc), and figure out what is really happening in a big-picture way before jumping at shadows.

Have you read "How To Lie With Statistics"?

 

[SSINTENSE]

I took statistics in college (and no, information isn't bad), it was enlightening. I firmly believe that to graduate HIGH SCHOOL you should have a solid foundation in the discipline.

Why?

My professor had a wonderful statement, which has been born out over and over in my life:

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Also:

"Telling a lie is easy, telling a really GOOD one requires statistics (which you can manipulate)."

Fact:

Until you know HOW these statistics are collected and how they are presented, you don't know what the heck they say. Statistical bias is a genuine factor in all discussions of this type.

So, to really answer your question: No, information isn't bad, but how it is presented is always in question.

FWIW, I don't doubt that there is something going on with our global climate. I don't doubt that we are influencing it to at least some degree, if not strongly influencing it. I do not think that "all the freaky tree hugging 'scientists' are trying to lie to us with their statistics". I just think that we need to be cautious about how we react (or under/over - react) to anything this serious. We need to make sure we have all the information, and have a full and rational picture of it. We need to do things that make sense NOW (better gas mileage cars, less carbon emissions from power plants, stop trashing our planet in general, get our population growth under control, make sure to protect and ensure clean water supplies, etc), and figure out what is really happening in a big-picture way before jumping at shadows.

+1000 to this. Governments worldwide are seeing this as an opportunity for big taxes and government expansion. The scare tactics are ensuing.

Over-reacting will do us more harm than good. We should really understand the problem first.

The next thing will be that production of alcohol creates a carbon footprint and thus more taxes must be imposed on it. Soon everything we like to do will leave some kind of carbon footprint. It's the perfect excuse to raise taxes.

 

[Gard]

Greg, I read the link, and see that it has what appears to be some valid information, but not 100% convinced, mainly because they insist on using STUPID analogies to support their conclusions (a bad sign, IMO). As for global warming, I think I outlined my position pretty well, I'm not tired of it, but if those running around doing their Chicken Little impersonations don't tone it down, they'll run any sensible support off pretty soon, IMO.

Have you read "How To Lie With Statistics"?

Required reading for the course. My prof was the quintessential "geek professor", full uniform: square black plastic frame glasses, short sleeve white button up shirt, pocket protector with numerous writing impliments, black slacks, black shoes.

Hysterically funny man, and brilliant beyond description, but ZERO social skills.

I worshiped him.

 

[anyonefortennis]

I think the people who try to find the flaws in everything (including owning pets) are an even more negative impact on the environment and society.

This.

I wonder what the impact is of competent scientists finding out "carbon paw prints" (puke) instead of curing cancer is.

 

[Gard]

+1000 to this. Governments worldwide are seeing this as an opportunity for big taxes and government expansion. The scare tactics are ensuing.

Over-reacting will do us more harm than good. We should really understand the problem first.

The next thing will be that production of alcohol creates a carbon footprint and thus more taxes must be imposed on it. Soon everything we like to do will leave some kind of carbon footprint. It's the perfect excuse to raise taxes.

Careful.

I am not a conspiracy theorist either.

Extreme positions of ANY type are scary and not to be trusted.

 

[emor]

Anyone know how this is going?

 

[MadMan118]

So information is bad? Got it.

Ooh, wow not quick to jump to conclusions at all are we? Information is good when it comes from a neutral source, with all the fanaticism behind the environmental warming impact blah blah, the info gets a bit less believable.

 

[warwick.hoy]

Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

I find this Misleading

I don't know about Europe but here in America,...6,200 miles a year is about half of the average yearly mileage we put on our cars.

 

[CapnSev]

So information is bad? Got it.

A lot of it, yes.

 

[GregC]

Ooh, wow not quick to jump to conclusions at all are we? Information is good when it comes from a neutral source, with all the fanaticism behind the environmental warming impact blah blah, the info gets a bit less believable.

Did you see what you agreed with? Dismissing a study as just "trying to find the flaws in everything" and claiming it has a massive, negative impact on society strikes me as the equivalent of sticking fingers in one's ears and yelling "nah nah nah, I can't hear you." At least read it and think about it. As for fanaticism, there's plenty to go around on BOTH sides of the warming debate.

 

[GregC]

A lot of it, yes.

There's a lot of noise in statistics, absolutely. But again, the casual dismissal of this study is pretty weak, IMO.

 

[standupright]

So information is bad? Got it.

depends on the integrity in which it is presented

 

[MadMan118]

Did you see what you agreed with? Dismissing a study as just "trying to find the flaws in everything" and claiming it has a massive, negative impact on society strikes me as the equivalent of sticking fingers in one's ears and yelling "nah nah nah, I can't hear you." At least read it and think about it. As for fanaticism, there's plenty to go around on BOTH sides of the warming debate.

Whatever you believe thats great for you, but I don't go looking to pick fights on the internet.

 

[ubone]

I know this will probably upset more than a few but, ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? I think the biggest threat to the environment is the addle minded, hippy dippy, new age, never say no, only the government can save us extremists, that waste you're tax dollars to come up with, and promote this kind of junk.
I believe the biggest threat to the environment and to all living species on our planet are those who refuse to exorcise the ability to actually think and use some common sense, and instead are all too eager to buy into this lunacy.
Grow up... Really take the time to actually learn something, and stop following the new religion being created by those folks who will be laughing at you all the way to the bank.