Welcome

The purpose of this blog is to explore and extend new ideas in conservation. Sometimes we will post short articles that reflect our current research, thinking and work, at other times we will comment on current issues and debates. We hope you find this blog interesting and we welcome comments and feedback

Richard J. Ladle

Friday 20 November 2009

Reining in dogs and cats

Nowadays the conservation-minded citizen is expected to do more than simply support their favorite conservation charity. Increasingly the message is to ‘become an environmental citizen by making life-style choices that reduce your personal eco-footprint’ by such means as reducing air travel, offsetting carbon emissions, buying local and so forth. But would people be willing to include pets in this list of life style choices?
A recent article in New Scientist argues that we should (www.newscientist.com No 2731:46 24/10/09). It reports a New Zealand study which found that an average-sized pooch fed on common brands of pet food has an eco-footprint more than the average Vietnamese citizen and more than twice that of a 4.6 litre Toyota Land cruiser! These uncomfortable comparisons were independently confirmed by scientists at the Stockholm Environment Institute. What’s more, the environmental impact of our pets extends beyond the amount of land needed to feed them. The number of wild animals killed by UK’s 7.7 million cats is projected to be somewhere in the order of 188 million (Mammal Review 33 p174 http://up.picr.de/2379461.pdf). Moreover, areas frequented by dogs support 35% less bird diversity (Biology Letters 3, p611) – not to mention the undesirable consequences of feces, particularly in urban areas.


Whilst the technicalities of such bench-marking exercises might be open to debate they are great for prompting debate and reflection. An argument voiced by some of our students was that pets fall into a different category of life-style choices to those relating to consumer items, holidays and food purchases. This is because pets are companions and animals have rights. In his insightful account of the rise of pet keeping in the 18th century Keith Thomas (Man and the Natural World 1986) describes how the loss of community, companionship and everyday contact with animals associated with the move from village to urban living caused people to keep animals in their homes and to endow their pets with human personality traits. For many people the line between eco-footprinting pets and eco-footprinting children or other family members is too close for comfort.

Other students took a more pragmatic view. In terms of reducing collective and personal environmental footprints pets look like the proverbial ‘low hanging fruit’. The ecological footprint of dogs could be dramatically reduced by feeding them leftovers and the predatory tendencies of cats could be curtailed by keeping them in at night (or removing their teeth – only joking!). Furthermore dogs and cats rarely live more than 10-15 years so people could be encouraged to replace their deceased pet with a less hungry or rapacious variety, or even give up pet-keeping altogether.

So why aren’t our influential conservation charities actively promoting more environmentally responsible pet-owning? Why aren’t they encouraging their members to change their pet keeping behavior or doing deals with pet-food companies to produce eco-friendly vegetarian products? So far as we can establish none have a policy position on pets and pet-keeping. Their reasons may well be pragmatic. For example, they might be concerned that many of their members are first and foremost pet lovers and would react badly to suggestions that they change their ways. Or, it could be that the bigger picture goal is to build wider support for the idea of calculating ecological footprints and personal carbon budgets, and the best way to do this is to focus on curtailing the easy evils of air-travel, SUVs junk food, and the like. Portraying the family friend at an eco-evil at this stage risks prompting ridicule and outrange from the media which could scupper the whole concept of eco-footprinting before it even gets a foothold.

These are valid concerns but they shouldn’t be used as excuses to avoid a discussion on our relationships with pets? At its root, conservation is a set of values of beliefs concerning the relationship between society and nature. These need to be revisited and debated if conservation is to keep its relevance in society. May be it is time to start thinking (and talking) about pets and conservation.

No comments:

Post a Comment