Weekly Bark: Are dogs bad for the environment?
Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man’s best friend
According to a new study, dogs are worse for the environment than cars. The study was conducted by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale. Their conclusion was 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 6,200 miles a year, including energy to build the car. The results were confirmed by another scientist who used his own data.
Personally, I wish I was only driving 6,200 miles a year. I’m probably twice that amount (sadly, but bills must be paid), so the disparity between both carbon footprints is much smaller. Also, I think the scientists are looking at it the wrong way. A car is a tool of people and should be looked more as a piece of man’s carbon footprint instead of being compared to a pet… and man’s carbon footprint is much higher than your standard canine. Still, it’s an interesting story and study.
Owner responsibility, not the breed, is key to dogs’ actions
Many people blame the breed when a dog acts up or gets destructive. No breed knows this better than the Pit Bull, which gets a bad reputation for being “aggressive” and “dangerous”, and are constantly being singled out in breed-specific legislation. It’s truly unfair and this column is great at disproving the bad rep Pit Bulls get, especially of late.
Things to know when getting a new pet
With the holiday season comes a wave of pets as gifts. And depending on the motivation and planning put into it, it could be a perfect fit or a bit a complete mismatch. Just like buying a car, it’s important to do your homework before adopting a dog. This column is short, but gives nice bullet points on things to know and consider before bringing home a new dog.
After the jump, are Labs the best choice for a family and a search-and-rescue Border Collie gets some online love after being quarantined.



