Damn that Humane Society. Why do they hate the Earth?

22 Dec, 2009 by TrogloPundit

Print this article Font size -16+

Great Mother Gaia is on her last nerve, and it’s all your fault, you stupid animal lovers. Your dogs and cats are worse for the environment than an SUV!

Thus sayeth Robert and Brenda Vale, authors of “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living:”

The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.

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 4×4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

So kill all the dogs — outlaw the ownership of pets. It’s for the children!

Ridiculous, you say? Ridiculous? Well, yeah. Little bit. Like I said once before, you have to take the margins into account. What’s the difference between a pet dog’s carbon pawprint and that of a dog living in the wild?

It shouldn’t be that hard to compute. We’ve already done it for moose:

Norway is concerned that its national animal, the moose, is harming the climate by emitting an estimated 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year through its belching and farting.

.. a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year.

See, that’s why I hunt. I’m taking those whitetails out before they can take us out. It’s for the planet.

And, yeah, sorry, all you predators out there. You, cheetah, with the little cheetah you’re trying to raise: sorry, but those wildebeests have got to go. They’re interfering with Nature’s greatness!

Back to the house pets now. Unfortunately for the animal lovers, their defenders are doing a really bad job of fighting this junk back:

Reha Huttin, president of France’s 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.

…”Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don’t eat meat, so why shouldn’t I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?”

Yeah, that’s great, Reha. You just totally gave them their basic premise. You just agreed with them that pets are bad for the environment!

You just lost, Reha.

Luckily for you, the “Pets are Bad” proponents aren’t much smarter than you are:

But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

“Rabbits are good, provided you eat them,” said Robert Vale.

“Oh, little Jimmy just loves his pet bunny. Should we have him with asparagus? Or would mixed vegetables be better?”