by Sixstrings » Thu 24 Dec 2009, 23:12:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'R')e : this issue. I love dogs (though not as much as cats) but there's no denying their ecological impact. Unless you feed your dog vegetarian. Which is somewhat unnatural but feasible (the record for longest lived dog was just broken, IIRC, but previous was held by a vegetarian pooch).
I plan to get a dog someday & I also have a kid. Some beings are worth the cost, IMO (and, of course, the cost of either can be drastically reduced with a bit of intelligence).
I really don't understand where you see the "ecological impact." The article I posted said something about Fancy Feast cat food with "choice cuts of meat." Well, for one thing dog food does NOT contain "choice" cuts. In fact, they put meat trimmings and scraps into dog food. Basically, if it doesn't go into a hot dog then it goes into dog food.
Other than that, most dry food is largely vegetarian anyway (read the ingredients, bet you'll see corn at the top of the list).
Pretty much every possession we have comes with a "carbon footprint." So why single out dogs? Why aren't we picking on golf courses, McMansions, SUV's, air travel, cosmetics, designer clothes, ipods, iphones, the interstate highway system, car travel in general, etc. etc. etc.