Maddy Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 lol he'd be rolled up in the fecal position if he ever steps foot in the country, he'd miss out on cow pat lotto.. The fecal position? Like.. a kind of.. swirly ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corrie Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Human beings are the greatest contributors to pollution. Naturally occuring bush fires cause more damage (in terms of CO2 output) than humans could ever manage. Nature is an irresponsible skank who doesn't care about the environment. Totally agree. What has nature ever done about the hole in the Ozone Layer? Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spottychick Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 my dogs dont "squander" anything. Nothing goes to waste with them around And they appreciate everything they get. More than I can say for my sisters kids LOL LMAO @ kuma akita!!! As for these alleged environmentalists who are supposedly choosing not to have pets due to some half-assed lame-brained notions like those stated in the letter - well that's fine by me. They don't sound like they're smart enough to own dogs or cats so we're all better off :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 To protect our beaches we should eliminate all marine life, especially whales. Whales are much bigger than dogs and with bans on whaling their population is increasing annuaally. Can you imagine the amount of poo that emanates from a pod of whales? Then we need to get rid of seals, fish, seagulls etc, all of which crap in the ocean. On land we need to get rid of all feral animals, especially birds, which crap wherever feel like - I have seen sports grounds where kids play covered in bird droppings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Nature is an irresponsible skank who doesn't care about the environment :p Nooo, that'd be humankind. Nature was doing just fine until humans started to destroy the planet. Nature is not burning/chopping down rainforest/harvesting millions of fish/prawns/emptying & polluting underground water storages/wrapping everything in plastic/creating smog clouds. Natural fires/floods were/are a part of life-balanced out by periods of massive growth/dry times/re -fertilising the ground with ash & silt etc etc ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 (edited) Natural fires/floods were/are a part of life-balanced out by periods of massive growth/dry times/re -fertilising the ground with ash & silt etc etc ... My point was.. more CO2 is produced annually by bush fires than by activites of the entire human population. Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's what we'd consider good, just like how something being a product of human activity doesn't necessarily make it all bad. The methane produced by cows also manages to do more damage to the ozone layer than humans but for some odd reason, you never see people protesting their hamburgers.. Edited for typo Edited October 1, 2010 by Hardy's Angel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 more CO2 is produced annually by bush fires... yes, and before human activities , the planet could well deal with that amount. Now , however, there is a double/triple whammy , and less of the natural planet available to absorb it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 The methane produced by cows also manages to do more damage to the ozone layer than humans but for some odd reason, you never see people protesting their hamburgers.. Actually you do, and the reasoning (which is the same as you have stated) is spurious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rottigirl Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 (edited) Anyone watch Dick Smith or David Attenborough's recent specials on environmental impact of increasing population by the human race on the earth? Here's the attenborough one for those that a bored and need an excuse not to have more children and reduce wastage instead by adding another canine member of the family How many people can live on planet earth doco This guy has reinterpreted the current debate concerning humans and applied it to dogs...by his logic dogs, humans are not responsible and therefore we only need to reduce dogs and not do anything about it, definitely going to save the world with that one :p contributing to algal blooms and deadly E coli contamination If you look up problems with the Murray River you actually find that these issues are caused mainly by fertalisers used by farmers required in intensive agricultural practices for human consumption. From NSW Water: What causes algal blooms Edited October 1, 2010 by Rottigirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 more CO2 is produced annually by bush fires... yes, and before human activities , the planet could well deal with that amount. Now , however, there is a double/triple whammy , and less of the natural planet available to absorb it all. From memory, CO2 from bush fires makes up more than 90% of what it produced and human activity accounts for less than 5% so it's not really a triple or even a double whammy on top of what's already happening. Actually you do, and the reasoning (which is the same as you have stated) is spurious. It sure is. If you want to protest hamburgers, there are far better reasons. My point was, people only tend to protest things they don't use/consume themselves anyway. This guy has a problem with dogs presumably so his argument is against owning them for environmental reasons (as environmental issues get quite a reaction at the moment).. "Dog cause damage to the environment and because of them, children are starving in Africa". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 This is just a little part of a world wide campaign to end dog ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Can somebody write back to this clown and explain to him that we are all surrounded by beautiful birds in trees .... and they crap all over the place. Nobody picking up after the birds, oh no! If you are unfortunate enough to have a few Scrub Turkeys roosting in a tree over a path, then you need a rake and a bucket the next morning to collect all the fertiliser. And as for ducks and wild geese and black swans, as beautiful as they are, they are PROLIFIC CRAPPERS ..... asn there are THOUSANDS OF THEM RIGHT in THE WATERWAYS! Somebody please write and tell this doghater to get a life and go and start picking up bird poo if he wants to save the world. Watermelon! Souff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosepup Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 I assume this guy is burying his poops in the garden and not sending them down the drain. Wouldn't wanna eat any of his home grown veggies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earthdog Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 lol he'd be rolled up in the fecal position if he ever steps foot in the country, he'd miss out on cow pat lotto.. Does that mean he's in the shit? He probably wrote that before his coffee and medication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 There are 10,000 walrus on an Alaskan beach .... perhaps he could volunteer to go round with a pooper scooper through that lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staranais Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Each pooch sqanders 0.84ha of land per year on grain and meat productions while world food supplies for humans struggle to keep pace with population increase demands. Already educated people are making a conscious choice not to have a pet, and so reduce a serious environmental pollution." I have heard the criticism before, that keeping pets is selfish when people are starving. I guess that's true to some degree, but only so much as any hobby that costs money is selfish. Buying a better car or house than you need, or buying DVDs or flash clothes, instead of donating the money to a starvation relief fund is just as "selfish" as spending money on food for a dog when people are in poverty. So why do people only criticise the dog owner? It's also important to remember that many of the things we feed our dogs cannot be fed to humans. Most pet food is made from meat not allowed into the human food chain for various reasons. Even the human quality meat I buy my dog tends to be things humans would prefer not to eat - offal, bones, etc. A lady over here tried to donate some (human grade) dog food ingredients to the poor in Somalia a few years back, and was turned down for "insulting" them and crucified for being racist! http://www.mg.co.za/article/2006-01-31-ken...dog-food-relief Dairy is a big contributer to waterway pollution over here. Our fish & game council started a big "dirty dairying" media campaign a few years back that didn't go down well with the farmers, but they raised some important issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 (edited) I have heard the criticism before, that keeping pets is selfish when people are starving. I guess that's true to some degree, but only so much as any hobby that costs money is selfish. Buying a better car or house than you need, or buying DVDs or flash clothes, instead of donating the money to a starvation relief fund is just as "selfish" as spending money on food for a dog when people are in poverty. So why do people only criticise the dog owner? It often feels to me like just a politically correct cover for not liking or for fearing pet animals. It's not as if the pet owner is suddenly going to start donating the money they spend on their pets to charity if they had no dogs, anymore than anyone one else is going to donate because they couldn't spend their money on what they like to now. It's no less a valid consumption choice than any other. Take away my dogs, I'd probably get a flashier car - that's really going to help the starving, not. And food producers aren't going to start giving their produce away to the starving if they can't sell it for pet food. They'll just go to the next most profitable market, and that's not going to be the poor. Or it will become a waste product, it's costs covered by increasing the price of rest of the more sought after cuts, if it's meat. It's a bogus argument. Edited October 2, 2010 by Diva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 It often feels to me like just a politically correct cover for not liking or for fearing pet animals. I thought the same thing. What was written was positively phobic. Despite all the excrement deposited on the ground by farming & native animals and bird life... that person singled out pet dogs. Do some head-counting of the total for the former, and you'd be occupied for quite a few eternities. So, even statistically, dogs would hardly register on the person's feared scale of excrement spilling into water-courses. Which was going on long before dogs were kept as pets. I'm sure dinosaurs didn't wear nappies! I'd bet there's a tendency to be phobic at the bottom (apt word, there) of that 'case'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazzat Xolo Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 This is a letter to the editor in today's local paper here. As a pet owner, I am offended, especially at the closing sentence. I would like to hear your opinions on this and know if anyone else finds this offensive / stupid? I tried to scan it in but the file was too large, even when compressed. So I have typed it word for word, including his spelling below: "The Forgotten Form of Pollution CR --- and others making an issue of dumped cigarette butts and rubbish are to be applauded. So let's not hide a health-damaging pollution that none wishes to talk about, for fear of attracting outrage and wrath. The dumping into our waterways by way of runoff of thousands of tons of dog and pet excrement, daily dumped on to foreshores, public verges, riversides and thousands of backyards. After rain, all this poo dump ends up in our groundwater, rivers and oceans, contributing to algal blooms and deadly E coli contamination. Each pooch sqanders 0.84ha of land per year on grain and meat productions while world food supplies for humans struggle to keep pace with population increase demands. Already educated people are making a conscious choice not to have a pet, and so reduce a serious environmental pollution." ETA: I'd like to write in a reply but not quite sure how to go about it. what he states is very correct but I do not like his comment about the educated people and choice of no pet, he could have worded his arguement in such a way that would not cause outrage! Again the irresponsible are making mistakes the responsible will pay for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazzat Xolo Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 It often feels to me like just a politically correct cover for not liking or for fearing pet animals. I thought the same thing. What was written was positively phobic. Despite all the excrement deposited on the ground by farming & native animals and bird life... that person singled out pet dogs. Do some head-counting of the total for the former, and you'd be occupied for quite a few eternities. So, even statistically, dogs would hardly register on the person's feared scale of excrement spilling into water-courses. Which was going on long before dogs were kept as pets. I'm sure dinosaurs didn't wear nappies! I'd bet there's a tendency to be phobic at the bottom (apt word, there) of that 'case'. He is right in the chemicals etc that are now found in wormers, foods etc that have gradually increased as man has become more "civilised! I had a study on this somewhere, as I too did not understand how dog excretia could be harmful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now