\n<\/p>\n
\u201cThe environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognised.”<\/span>Donat Sorokin\/TASS\/ZUMA<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n This story was originally published b<\/em>y\u00a0the<\/em> Guardian<\/a> and is reproduced here as part of the\u00a0<\/em>Climate Desk<\/a>\u00a0collaboration<\/em>.<\/p>\n Dogs have \u201cextensive and multifarious\u201d<\/span> environmental impacts, disturbing wildlife, polluting waterways and contributing to carbon emissions, new research has found.<\/p>\n An Australian review of existing studies has argued that \u201cthe environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognised\u201d.<\/p>\n While the\u00a0environmental impact of cats<\/a>\u00a0is\u00a0well known<\/a>, the comparative effect of pet dogs has been poorly acknowledged, the researchers said.<\/p>\n The review, published in the journal\u00a0Pacific Conservation Biology<\/em><\/a>, highlighted the impacts of the world\u2019s \u201ccommonest large carnivore\u201d in killing and disturbing native wildlife, particularly shore birds.<\/p>\n In Australia, attacks by unrestrained dogs on little penguins in Tasmania may contribute to colony collapse,\u00a0modelling suggests<\/a>, while a\u00a0study of animals<\/a>\u00a0taken to the Australia Zoo wildlife hospital found that mortality was highest after dog attacks, which was the second most common reason for admission after car strikes.<\/p>\n In the US, studies have found that deer, foxes and bobcats were less active in or avoid wilderness areas where dogs were allowed, while other research shows that insecticides from flea and tick medications kill aquatic invertebrates when they wash off into waterways. Dog feces can also leave scent traces and affect soil chemistry and plant growth.<\/p>\n The\u00a0carbon footprint of pets<\/a>\u00a0is also significant. A\u00a02020 study<\/a>\u00a0found the dry pet food industry had an environmental footprint of around twice the land area of the UK, with greenhouse gas emissions\u201456 to 151 Mt CO2<\/sub>\u2014 equivalent to the 60th highest-emitting country.<\/p>\n The review\u2019s lead author, Prof Bill Bateman of Curtin University, said the research did not intend to be \u201ccensorious\u201d but aimed to raise awareness of the environmental impacts of man\u2019s best friend, with whom humans\u2019 domestic relationship dates back\u00a0several millennia<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cTo a certain extent we give a free pass to dogs because they are so important to us\u2026not just as working dogs but also as companions.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n \u201cTo a certain extent we give a free pass to dogs because they are so important to us\u2026 not just as working dogs but also as companions,\u201d he said, pointing to the \u201chuge benefits\u201d dogs had on their owners\u2019 mental and physical health. He also noted that dogs played vital roles in conservation work, such as in\u00a0wildlife detection<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough we\u2019ve pointed out these issues with dogs in natural environments\u2026there is that other balancing side, which is that people will probably go out and really enjoy the environment around them\u2014and perhaps feel more protective about it\u2014because they\u2019re out there walking their dog in it.\u201d<\/p>\n Angelika von Sanden, a trauma therapist and the author of Sit Stay Grow: How Dogs Can Help You Worry Less and Walk into a Better Future<\/em>, said she had observed that for many clients the companionship of a dog was often \u201cliterally the only reason to survive, to get up, to still keep going\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cIt gives them a reason to get up, a reason to get out, a reason to move around and be in contact a little bit with the world outside,\u201d she said. \u201cDog owners can get a bad name if they are not aware of the surroundings they are in and of other people around them.\u201d<\/p>\n In the review, the researchers attributed the extent of the environmental impacts to the sheer number of dogs globally, as well as \u201cthe lax or uninformed behavior of dog owners\u201d.<\/p>\n A simple way to mitigate against the worst impacts was to keep dogs leashed in areas where restrictions apply and to maintain a buffer distance from nesting or roosting shorebirds, the paper suggested.<\/p>\n \u201cA lot of what we\u2019re talking about can be ameliorated by owners\u2019 behavior,\u201d Bateman said, pointing out that\u00a0low compliance<\/a>\u00a0with leash laws was a problem.<\/p>\n \u201cMaybe, in some parts of the world, we actually need to consider some slightly more robust laws.\u201d<\/p>\n He suggested that dog exclusion zones might be more suitable in some areas.<\/p>\n Bateman also raised sustainable dog food as an option to reduce a pet\u2019s environmental paw print, noting however that \u201cmore sustainable dog food tends to cost more than the cheap dog food that we buy which has a higher carbon footprint.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf nothing else, pick up your own dog shit,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n