Animal lovers furious as report claims dogs are bad for environment, cause significant harm to wildlife

WASHINGTON, DC: Progressive outlet Mother Jones lit up social media this weekend after republishing an eyebrow-raising article from The Guardian that labeled dogs as serious "environmental villains".

The left-leaning publication recently spotlighted research, first reported by The Guardian, that paints a complicated picture of man’s best friend.

Dogs branded eco-villains by liberal outlet

According to the study, dogs have “extensive and multifarious” environmental impact. From disrupting local wildlife (especially vulnerable shorebirds) to polluting waterways and adding to carbon emissions, the research suggests our furry companions might be leaving a bigger ecological paw print than we thought.

An Australian review published in Pacific Conservation Biology took a closer look at how dogs impact wildlife. The review argued that “the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognized”.

Drawing from multiple studies, researchers highlighted that dog attacks may have played a major role in the disappearance of little penguin colonies in Tasmania.

Another study, focused on animals brought into the Australia Zoo wildlife hospital, found that injuries from dog attacks were often the deadliest, with the highest mortality rates compared to other causes.

In the US, the report noted some surprising ripple effects from having dogs in natural areas. Wildlife like deer, bobcats, and foxes avoid areas where dogs roam, and that flea treatments can wash into waterways, harming aquatic life. Even dog poop got called out for altering soil chemistry and plant growth.

According to researchers, dogs leave a pretty big carbon pawprint too. A 2020 study revealed that the dry pet food industry’s environmental footprint is around twice the land area of the UK, with greenhouse gas emissions ranking it as the 60th highest carbon-emitting nation.

To mitigate against the worst impacts, the report suggested to keep dogs leashed in areas where restrictions apply and to maintain a buffer distance from nesting or roosting shorebirds.

Lead author of the research, Prof Bill Bateman of Curtin University, 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.”

He also suggested sustainable dog food as an option to reduce the animals' environmental paw print. “If nothing else, pick up your own dog s**t,” he said.

Liberal media's claim dogs harm the environment fuels online fury

After Mother Jones republished an article that called dogs "environmental villians", the backlash was swift. Dog owners and even some left-leaning commentators took to X to defend their pups.

“Did… a cat write this?” columnist Tim Carney joked.

'The Young Turks' host Ana Kasparian chimed in, “Is there any enjoyable part of life these insufferable kill joys won’t attack?”

Gabriella Hoffman of the Independent Women’s Forum commented, “First environmentalists came for cows and people said nothing. Now they want to sacrifice dogs to save the planet? Not a winning message by the net-zero crowd, whose track record is notoriously bad.”

“Dogs are greater contributors to society than woke, environmental lefties,” one user snapped.

“I know climate change alarmists tend to prefer cats, but letting them write your articles is crazy,” another joked.

Many saw the critique as another sign of government overreach wrapped in climate rhetoric.

One user said, “Get rid of cows. Get rid of cars. Get rid of air travel. Get rid of dogs. All for a pseudo-scientific, completely fake ‘climate crisis’ that's about giving the government more control and making a bunch of people rich. No thanks.”

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.