Radical Environmentalists Find New Target: Your Pets

Just when you think the elites and radical environmentalists can't get more out of touch, they spring something so profoundly dumb that the world pauses and takes notice. I refer to the latest push to eliminate your pets.

Yes, we are now told pets are bad for the environment. The reasons center around social justice rationality, so you know right away it's flawed logic.

In the last few weeks, the news has been full of stories reinforcing this conclusion. One such article noted, "Study finds pet dogs pose significant threat to wildlife and ecosystems." We are informed that "new research found dogs, as the world's most common large carnivores, present a significant and multifaceted environmental threat" and "human-owned, pet dogs disturb and directly harm wildlife, particularly shorebirds, even when leashed."

The specific objections:

"As well as predatory behavior like chasing wildlife, dogs leave scents, urine and feces, which can disrupt animal behavior long after the dogs have left."

"Studies have found that animals like deer, foxes and bobcats in the U.S. are less active or completely avoid areas where dogs are regularly walked, even in the absence of the dogs."

"Dog waste also contributes to pollution in waterways and inhibits plant growth, while wash-off from chemical treatments used to clean and guard dogs from parasites can add toxic compounds to aquatic environments."

"In addition, the pet food industry, driven by a vast global dog population, has a substantial carbon, land and water footprint."

The man behind these conclusions - associate professor Bill Bateman, from Curtin's School of Molecular and Life Sciences - admits "addressing these challenges required a careful balance between reducing environmental harm and maintaining the positive role of dogs as companions and working animals."

But Dr. Bateman is just the latest in a long string of attempts to discourage pet ownership. Consider the following recent headlines:

- Why are cats bad for the environment?

- Fido And Fluffy are ruining the environment, UCLA study says

- The case against pets (in which two law professors argue that "non-human" ownership is a form of torture)

- Gender & sexuality studies prof applies critical race theory to the lives of shelter dogs (allowing your dog(s) to sleep inside your house is actually a manifestation of white privilege)

- Our pets are part of the climate problem. These tips can help you minimize their carbon pawprints

- Dogs slammed as 'settler-colonial' as pooches and owners blamed for 'gentrifying' New York City by woke activists

- World's dogs going vegan 'would save more emissions than U.K. produces' (study estimates cats and dogs consume about 9% of all land animals killed for food)

- CDC warns pet dogs could start spreading new deadly flesh-eating parasite to humans in the U.S.

Conclusion: Pets are evil! Pets are dangerous! Pets are bad for the environment! Pets will doom the earth! Pets are racist!

You'd think, with their approval rating lower than it's ever been before, extreme leftists, woke activists and social justice warriors would stop supporting stupid ideas, but there you go.

Now WHY would extremists push the concept that pets are bad? The benefits humans derive from our cats and dogs are immeasurable. Beyond their many jobs (rescue, herding, guarding, guiding, law enforcement, service, therapy, etc.), pets provide astounding joy and mental health benefits.

One columnist has a theory as to why pets are in the crosshairs: "What you need to understand about rabid environmentalism (and liberalism as a whole) is that it exists to suck the joy out of everything in life. There is no endgame. It's a constant march toward more and more authoritarian deprivation in pursuit of unattainable, idealistic goals. 

They won't be happy until you own nothing and live your life through contactless virtual reality, gaining your sustenance through tubes while lying in a dark basement somewhere. Yes, dogs release carbon emissions. So does almost everything else that exists. Besides, what's even being suggested here? Should we start killing all the dogs because they chase birds and pee in streams?"

The elites have been floating the idea that pets are bad for years, but here's the thing the globalists don't seem to grasp: The left is just as devoted to their beloved "fur babies" as are those on the right. Declaring pet ownership as bad for the planet, I strongly feel, would be a losing battle. A love for our pets unites left and right, liberal and conservative, poor and rich.

"The threat of dog confiscation is not around the corner," notes this article. "But what these sorts of campaigns can do is feed regulatory restrictions. More registrations, more shots, more tracking, more chips under the skin, more fines, more rules, and so on. In the industrialized West, we already face tremendous restrictions on breeding, raising, and selling pets. 

It's doubtful that anyone is going to take your pet. The way this works is to make it more difficult for the next generation to come along. They put the squeeze on, introducing ever more controls and mandates, fines and fees, monitoring and investigations, until it is just not worth it anymore. The costs outweigh the benefits. That's how the anti-pet forces play the long game. ... This is how control over our lives works these days: it creeps in gradually over time, and we hardly notice it until it is too late."

Here's my take on the issue: You can argue endlessly that pets are bad for the environment; but unless and until the globalist elites are willing to give up their private jets, lavish lifestyles and ginormous carbon footprints, they can go pound sand about the environmental impact of our beloved dogs and cats. Or, as one person put it, "Millions of pets couldn't do a quarter of the damage done by John Kerry and Company."

Woof.

Originally published at WND News Center